George  Washington  Flowers 
Memorial  Collection 

DUKE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

ESTABLISHED  BY  THE 
FAMILY  OF 
COLONEL  FLOWERS 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


https://archive.org/details/signsoftimesorreOOcare 


SIGNS 


OF  THE  TIMES  : 


REFLECTIONS 


0$ 


BY  A  CITIZEX  OF  ABBEVILLE.  €c 


COLUMBIA,  S.  C. 

PRINTED  AT  THE  OFFICE  OF  THE  FREE  PRESS  AND  HIV?!, 

1831. 


rHE  FLOWERS  COLLEUTK)-.' 


INTRODUCTIOxN. 


THE  Essays  originajly  published  in  the  Eree  Press  and  Hive,  signed 
Madison,  are  now  offered  to  the  public  in  pamphlet  form,  after  having  been  re- 
vised and  corrected  by  the  Author. 

In  the  opinion  of  the  Publisher,  never  was  the  body  politic  infected  with  a 
more  dangerous  disease  than  nullification,  and  never  did  disease  meet  with  a 
more  effectual  antidote  than  is  found  in  these  Essays  for  that  singular  political 
epidemic. 

In  addition  to  the  lucid  illustration  and  conclusive  arguments  contained  in 
these  Essays,  we  would  ask  the  nullifiers  if  they  suppose  a  body  of  free,  inde- 
pendent and  happy  yeomanry,  blessed  with  unparalleled  civil  and  religious  lib- 
erty— with  a  trade  as  free  as  the  winds  with  twenty-four  United  States,  includ- 
ing almost  every  salubrious  and  productive  climate  from  the  equator  to  the  poles, 
and  many  of  their  memories  still  echoing  the  advice  of  Washington,  which  their 
own  ears  heard  as  it  fell  from  his  lips — We  say  can  the  Nullifiers  expect  to 
make  followers  of  such  men  when  they  propagate  doctrines  unknown  to  their 
fathers  and  incomprehensible  to  themselves  ? 

A  few  quotations  will  show  the  opinions  entertained  by  respectable  Southern 
editors  of  these  Essays.  The  Macon  (Ga.)  Telegraph,  an  ably  edited  paper, 
lias  the  following  remark  : — "  They  are  evidently  from  the  pen  of  a  sound  and 
intelligent  lawyer,  who  disdains  appealing  to  the  passions,  but  commits  his 
cause,  and  that  of  his  country,  to  impartial  reason.  Never  has  Nullification 
been  met  with  more  power  or  been  more  severely  handled." 

The  Georgetown  (S.  C.)  Union,  says  : — "  They  place  this  doctrine  in  so  ab- 
surd a  light  that  no  one  except  a  political  partizan,  blinded  by  his  previously 
conceived  notions,  and  determined  at  all  hazards  to  abide  by  them,  can  resist  the 
conclusion  of  their  utter  fallacy." 

The  Planters'  (Alabama)  Gazette  says: — "  Those  who  wish  to  see  the  new 
fangled  '  heresy'  of  State  Rights  vitally  exposed,  are  requested  to  read  the  fol- 
lowing lucid  extract,  from  the  pen  of  a  brilliant  writer,  signing  himself  '  Madi- 
son,' in  the  '  Columbia  Free  Press  and  Hive.'  The  author  is  worthy  of  his  as- 
sumed name.  He  appears  to  have  drank  deep  at  the  fountain  of  knowledge, 
anxious  to  hand  down  to  posterity  the  rich  legacy  bequeathed  to  na  by  our  foffi* 
fathers.  While  such  patriots  exist  in  the  land,  America  will  never  have  cause 
to  exclaim.  1  farewell,  a  long  farewell  to  all  my  greatness !'  " 


ESSAYS. 


NO.  1. 

A  plain  man  would  have  believed  from  the  smoke  that  iloat- 
ed  in  the  political  atmosphere,  during  the  last  summer,  and  from 
the  mighty  gasconading  that  exhibited  itself  in  the  ranks  of  the  nulli- 
fies, that  the  party  reaih  intended  to  do  something  ;  if  only  for  the 
purpose  of  redeeming  their  pledges  with  the  people  ;  and  giving  evi- 
dence that  they  believed  the  doctrine  they  had  so  industi  iousljr 
preached.  1  can  only  say,  that,  were  I  of  their  creed,  and  did  1 
believe  what  they  profess,  I  should  have  regarded  myself  as  recre- 
ant to  that  high  sense  of  honor  and  chivalry  which  they  claim,  if, 
when  the  crisis  came,  I  had  found  myself  making  an}'  excuses  against 
immediate  "  action."  What,  sir,  believe  that  the  people  of  this 
state  were  unjustly  and  unconstitutonally  taxed  by  a  corrupt  go- 
vernment to  an  amount  equal  to  40  per  cent,  on  all  they  made  ! 
believe  too  that  we  held  in  our  own  hands  a  peaceful  and  constitu- 
tional remedy  ;  from  the  exercise  of  which  there  could  be  as  little 
danger  of  harm,  as  there  is  of  a  planet's  departing  from  its  orbit  !  ! 
Believe  this,  I  say,  and  yet  as  a  representative  of  that  people,  not 
be  firm  enough  to  make  the  experiment !  !  It  is  too  bad.  'Tis  a 
feebleness  of  nerve,  both  moral,  and  physical,  that  I  would  be  un- 
willing to  attribute  to  any  creature  having  the  form  and  propor- 
tions of  a  man. 

It  is  conceded  by  both  parties,  that  the  nullifiers  had  a  majority 
in  the  Legislature.  Why  then,  I  ask,  did  they  not  bring  forward 
this  famous  specific — this  panacea,  that  is  to  cure  us  of  every  ill  ? 
Do  they  in  their  consciences,  believe  that  it  is  a  constitutional  and 
peaceful  remedy  ;  involving  in  its  exercise  no  danger  whatever  I 
And  do  they  believe  it  will  have  the  effect  they  assert?  If  the\ 
do,  then  their  course  has  proved  them  the  veriest  bragadocios,  and 
bobadills,  that  ever  exhibited  themselves  before  the  public.  That 
the  Legislature  has  power  to  nullify  is  contended  for  by  the  text 
books  of  their  party,  nor  as  far  as  I  know,  is  it  denied  by  any  pro- 
minent man  amongst  them.  Indeed  as  there  must,  in  order  to  nul- 
lify, be  a  law  imposing  sanctions,  and  penalties,  it  would  seem  that 
no  other  body  could  do  it.  Why  then  has  it  not  been  done?  And 
why  has  not  this  majority  ai rested  the  law,  as  they  so  often  promis- 
ed, and  relieved  the  people  from  the  Tariff?  The  question  may 
be  a  delicate  one,  and  gentlemen  may  not  like  to  reply — Permit  me 
therefore  to  come  to  their  assistance.    The  answer,  I  think  is,  easy  : 


they  cio  uoifeet  clear  on  the  point  ;  they  have  virions  doubts  as  to 
its  peaceful  qualities;  and  well  know,  that  in  all  human  probabili- 
ty, its  exorcise  would  be  followed,  either  by  a  skulking  out  on  the 
part  of  the  state,  or  by  bloodshed.  This  is  no  doubt  the  reason 
why  the  thing  has  not  been  attempted,  lor  the  experience  of  the 
summer  had  satisfied  them,  that  whenever  this  was  made  fully  mani- 
fest to  the  people,  their  political  days  would  be  numbered,  and 
soon  it  might  be  said  of  them,  as  'twas  said  of  ancient  Troy — Ilium 
fuit. 

The  party  have  conjured  up  a  creature  of  a  diseased  brain — a 
phantom,  to  be  found,  certainly  not  in  the  constitution  of  the  Union, 
nor  any  where  else,  except,  perhaps,  in  those  heads,  the  chief  at- 
tribute of  which  may  be  nullification  itself.  It  is  now  used  as  u 
talisman,  to  keep  together,  and  enable  particular  men  to  ride  the 
wave — direct  the  storm — and  keep  themselves  in  power;  and  while 
this  can  be  effected,  some  oj  them  at  least  will  be  content.  "  To 
reign  in  hell  rather  than  serve  in  heaven,"  is  the  maxim  of  ambi- 
tion ;  and  there  may  be  some  amongst  us,  that  would  prefer  the 
Chief  Magistracy  of  the  JSation  of  South  Carolina,  to  thai  of  a  pri- 
vate station  in  the  Union. 

This  party  claim  to  be  republicans.  It  is  a  slander  on  common 
sense.  They  exhibit  themselves  as  the  enemies  of  the  very  first 
and  cardinal  principles  of  republicanism  ;  and  Inculcate  a  doctrine 
which,  taken  in  all  its  bearings,  would  annihilate  free  institutions 
altogether.  Mr.  M'Duffie  in  his  "  one  of  the  people"  says,  that 
this  creed  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Ilohj  Alliance  of  Crowned  Heads 

in  Europe  and  Ue  says  true — for  it  is  capable  of  demonstration, 

that  under  the  operation  of  this  faith,  republics  are  at  an  end.  It 
allows  no  majority  to  act,  without  the  consent  of  the  minority.  It 
permits  the  minority  to  construe  the  constitution,  and  carry  that 
construction  into  execution,  and  yet  it  denies  the  same  right  to  the 
majority  ! !  And  to  cap  the  climax  of  absurdity,  it  authorises  seven 
states  to  rule  in  all  cases  the  other  seventeen,  although  they  may 
be  the  smallest  and  most  insignificant  in  the  Union.  It  subverts 
the  natural  order  of  things-— makes  the  minor  rule  the  major  pow- 
er ;  and  is  precisely  that  principle  which  places  kings  on  thrones  ! 

What  more  could  a  disciple  of  Sir  Robert  Filmer  wish,  to  establish 
the  necessity  of  universal  monarchy,  than  the  doctrine,  that  the  "  ma- 
jority in  a  republic  are  necessarily  corrupt" — "that  they  will  oppress 
the  minority" — and  that  that  minority  must  have  the  right  to  arrest 
the  proceedings  of  the  government  at  all  times,  and  under  all  circum- 
stances, when  to  them  it  seemeth  good  1  Any  one  could  sec?,  or 
ought  to  sm',  that  a  republican  government  could  not  get  along  at 
all  under  this  restriction  ;  and,  of  course,  the  alternative  presented 
would  be  anarchy,  or  monarchy  ;  no  government  at  all.  or  bow  ihe 
ueck  to  a  kinjr,  «»nd  thus  permit  the  lowest  possible  minority  to 
rule  !  In  all  free  governments,  having  constitutions,  ihe  checks 
and  balances  that  are  intended  to  counteract  the  exercise  of  Hibi- 
trary  power,  are  always  all  specified,  and  indeed  it  is  for  this  ex- 
press purpose  that  constitutions  are  made.  Unless  gentlemeu, 
therefore,  can  shew  me  that  this  doctrine  is  either  drawn  from  the 


(J 


constitution,  or  ks  exorcise  perfectly  compatible  with  the  power* 
given  away  by  tiiat  instrument,  they  must  pardon  me  for  not  as- 
senting to  their  faith. 

JfO.  2. 

I  shall  in  this  number  proceed  to  make  a  few  observations  on 
a.  phrase  which  is  in  every  one's  mouth,  but  which  with  all  due  de- 
ference I  mu-it  say  few  seem  to  understand;  We  live  in  an  age  of 
cant — and  the  pigmy  politicians  of  the  da}',  so  actively  employed  in 
producing  disaffection  to  the  Union,  well  aware  of  the  sophistry  of 
their  creed,  cautiously  keep  clear  of  reason  or  argument,  and  de- 
pend upon  sustaining  themselves  m  ainly  by  ringing  the  changes  on 
cant  phrases,  thereby  hoping  to  mislead  the  community.  Of  these 
cant  isms  (if  I  may  be  permitted  to  coin  a  word)  none  are  more 
conspicuous,  nor  oftener  heard,  than  "  State  Sovereignty" — and 
this,  too,  often  from  the  mouths  of  persons  who  understand  it  not. 

The  nullMer,  well  aware  that  his  doctrine  is  utterly  inconsistent 
with  any  other  state  attitude  than  that  of  "  sovereignty,"  sets  ou; 
with  the  pompous  declaration,  that  she  is  "  free,  sovereign,  and  in- 
dependent." If  this  were  true,  there  could  be  no  doubt  of  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  balance  of  his  creed  ;  for  sovereignty  knows  no  su- 
perior, and  consequently  is  bound  to  obey  no  law.  But  is  it  the 
fact,  that  any  one  State  in  this  Union,  while  continuing  a  member  of 
this  confederacy,  is  "  sovereign  and  independent"  1  This  is  what 
1  wish  to  inquire  into  :  and  in  the  first  place,  what  is  sovereignty  ? 
Abstractly  taken,  it  is  clear  that  sovereignty  is  ideal,  and  can  only 
be  denned  by  reference  to  its  attributes.  A  state  is  sovereign 
which  possesses  the  attributes  of  sovereignty  :  and  it  is  a  misnomer 
to  call  one  sovereign  that  is  deprived  of  those  attributes.  Whal 
then  are  the  attributes  of  sovereignty  ?  I  answer ;  in  a  govern- 
ment, it  is  the  right  and  power  to  declare  and  carry  on  war — to 
conclude  peace — to  form  alliances— to  coin  money— to  regulate 
commerce— and  to  make  all  those  laws  that  are  necessary  for  the 
people  over  which  it  presides  ;  and  all  this  without  let  or  hindrance 
from  any  other  power  on  earth.  I  do  not  say  that  these  are  all 
the  attributes  of  sovereignty,  but  they  are  the  principal,  and  are  suf- 
ficient for  my  present  purpose.  Now  does  the  nullifier  intend  to 
admit  the  binding  efficacy  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ? 
If  he  does,  then  permit  me  to  ask  him,  can  the  state  declare 
war  ?— can  she  conclude  peace  ?— can  she  form  alliances  ?— can 
she  coin  money? — can  she  keep  standing  armies  in  time  of  peace 
Or  can  she  adopt  any  form  of  government,  or  pass  any  law,  in- 
compatible with  the  Constitution  of  the  Union  ?  Each  of  the  pow- 
ers here  mentioned  is  essential  to  the  character  of  sovereignty,  and 
I  put  it  to  the  candor  of  the  nullifier  to  say,  whether  the  state  has 
'he-  right  to  do  any  of  these  things.     If  he  admits  that  she  has  nor. 


and  I  am  satisfied  that  no  Candid  man,  I  care  not  to  what  party  lit 
belongs,  will  assert  that  she  lias  ;  then  1  again  ask  him  what  kind  ot 
sovereignty  is  it  that  has  none  of  its  principal  attributes'?  The 
State  has  not  the  right  to  do  any  of  the  acts  above  specified  ;  these 
acts  are  essential  to  sovereignty ;  therefore  the  States  are  not 
sovereign. 

In  the  next  place,  the  governments  of  the  stales  have  not  only 
no  power  to  exercise  any  of  the  acts  of  sovereignty  above  alluded 
to,  but  the  people  of  the  states  are  subject  to  laws  made  by  another, 
power  ;  nor  have  the  state  governments  any  right  to  protect  them 
from  the  opeiation  of  those  laws.  Now  sovereignty  makes  its  own 
laws,  and  protects  its  own  subjects  or  citizens  from  the  operation  of 
the  laws  of  all  other  powers.  Look  to  ttie  history  of  the  world,  and 
you  cannot  find  an  instance  of  a  sovereign  state  submitting  to  the 
annual  legislation  of  another  power.  Now  we  know  that  Congress 
has  the  right,  (and  has  for  the  last  forty  years  been  exercising  it 
too,)  of  making  laws  that  are  obligatory  on  the  people  of  the  states  ; 
and  how  any  one  can  claim  sovereignty  for  his  state,  and  at  the 
same  time  tamely  submit  to  the  annual  legislation  of  Congress,  is  to 
me  incomprehensible  !  Soveieignty  makes  its  own  laws,  and  go- 
verns, exclusively,  its  own  people  ;  Congress  has  the  right  to  make 
certain  laws  for  the  people  ol  the  states,  and  the  states  have  no 
right  to  forbid  it— therefore  the  states  are  not  sovereign. 

In  the  next  place,  sovereignty  taxes  its  own  people,  and  prohibits 
the  tax  laus  of  all  other  powers  from  having  force  within  its  territo- 
ry. Congress  has  the  right  to  tax  the  people  of  the  states,  and  the 
states  cannot  prevent  it,  therefore,  in  this  respect,  also,  the  states 
are  not  sovereign. 

Again,  sovereignty  calls  its  own  troops  into  the  field,  in  defence 
of  its  own  territory,  and  no  other  power  has  a  right  to  interfere  or 
make  such  requisitions.  The  government  of  the  United  States  has 
this  power  in  regard  to  the  citizens  of  the  states,  and  the  states1 
governments  have  no  right  to  prevent  it— therefore  in  this  respect 
likewise,  they  are  not  sovereign. 

But  again,  the  states  are  not  only  shorn  of  certain  cardinal  pow- 
ers of  sovereignty,  and  their  people  bound  to  obey  the  laws  of  the 
General  Government  as  already  demonstrated  ;  but  they  are  re- 
strained and  controlled  by  the  Constitution  of  the  Union  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  those  powers  which  they  have  reserved  to  themselves. 
11  Sovereignty,"  says  Judge  Rowan,  in  his  famous  speech  on  Foot's 
resolutions,  "  knows  no  superior  but  the  God  of  battles."  If,  there- 
fore the  state  government,  in  the  exercise  of  its  own  functions,  is 
controlled  by  any  other  power  than  its  own  will,  it  is  not  sovereign. 
Let  us,  therefore  see,  whether  it  is  not  controlled.  Suppose  a  state 
was  to  propose  to  establish  a  government,  composed  of  a  King, 
Lords  and  Commons  ;  could  she  do  so  ?  Most  assuredly  not ;  for 
the  Constitution  of  the  Union  controls  her — prohibits  any  form  of 
government  other  than  republican— and  forbids  titles  of  nobility. 
Suppose  she-  were  to  attempt  to  dispense  with  the  trial  by  Jury,  or 
pass  laws  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts,  or  laws  in  their  na- 
ture ex  pest  facto  ;  could  she  do  so  ?    Most  certainly  not,  for  in 


s 


doing  so,  she  would  violate  the  Constitution  of  the  Union,  and  ail 
laws  that  violate  it  arc  null  and  void.  Sovereignty  is  independent 
of  earthly  comrol  ;  the  states  are  controlled;  therefore  the  states 
are  not  sovereign. 

Now  if  there  is  error  or  sophistry  in  the  above  remarks,  I  shall 
be  glad  to  have  it  exposed  ;  for  truth  is  my  object.  The  state  go- 
vernment has  its  particular  orbit  in  which  to  move— its  circle  of 
duties  to  perform— and  those  duties  are  presented,  and  limited  by- 
its  own  constitution,  as  well  as  that  of  the  Union.  The  Constitu- 
tion of  the  state  directs  the  government  what  it  may  do  ;  and  the 
Constitution  of  the  Union  what  it  may  not  do.  The  assumption  of 
sovereignty  and  independence,  therefore,  on  the  part  of  the  state, 
is  a  throwing  off  the  obligations  we  owe  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
Union,  a  charter  which  we  have  sworn  to  obey  and  protect  ;  and 
is  a  virtual  declaration  to  the  other  states  that  we  hold  them  as  we 
do  the  rest  ot  the  world,  "  enemies  in  war;  and  in  peace,  friends." 

NO.  3. 

Permit  me  in  this  number  to  investigate  these  points  a  little 
further— for  in  a  controversy  like  the  present,  it  is  exceedingly  im- 
portant that  we  should  understand  the  true  theory  of  our  institu- 
tions. I  think  1  have  shewn  in  the  last  number,  that  the  states, 
while  they  continue  members  oi  the  confederacy,  are  not  "  sove- 
reign and  independent,"  but,  on  the  contrary,  are  governments  of 
limited  powers,  being  controlled  and  circumscribed  in  the  sphere  of 
their  action  by  the  Constitution  of  the  Union.  The  same  observa- 
tion is  equally  true  in  regard  to  the  General  Government ;  with 
this  difference,  that  in  the  latter  case,  the  only  powers  the  govern- 
ment has,  is  derived  from  the  constitution  ;  while  in  the  former, 
the  powers  taken  away,  and  which  of  course  the  states  have  no 
right  to  exercise,  is  specified  and  set  out  in  the  constitution. 

Anterior  to  the  formation  of  the  present  constitution,  there  ex- 
isted a  Supreme  Council,  then,  as  now,  called  a  Congress  ;  and  also 
a  kind  of  union,  denominated  a  Confederation.  This  Congress, 
however,  had  no  authority  to  pass  laws  that  were  obligatory  on  the 
people.  Its  requisitions  issued  in  the  shape  of  resolutions,  and  were 
intended  to  operate  on  the  state  governments ;  but  they  carried 
with  them  no  sanctions,  nor  was  there  any  power  to  enforce  them. 
In  this  state  of  things  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  resolutions  of  that 
body  would  be  considered  by  the  states  as  mere  advice^  to  be 
obeyed  or  not,  as  to  them  seemed  good.  With  a  government  thus 
restricted,  totally  unable  to  enforce  its  decrees,  no  foreign  power 
of  course  would  form  treaties,  for  it  would  be  obviously  nugatory  to 
form  treaties  with  a  government  that  had  not  power  to  enforce,  or 
comply  with  its  own  part  of  the  stipulation.  This  state  of  things 
was  so  palpably  deleterious  to  the  welfare  of  the  people,  that  it  was 


determined  to  alter  the  frame  of  the  Union,  and  give  to  the  General 
Government  more  power  than  belonged  to  it  ;  and  lor  this  pur- 
pose a  convention  ol'  all  the  states  assembled  in  solemn  council  in 
the  city  ol'  Philadelphia. 

The  present  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  the  result  of  the 
deliberations  of  that  body,  was  reported  to  Congress  by  General 
Washington,  sent  to  the  states,  and  ratified  by  them  severally  in 
convention,  and  is  now  the  supreme  law  of  the  Union,  "  any  thing 
in  the  laws  or  constitution  of  any  state  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing.'* 

This  constitution  called  the  General  Government  into  existence; 
and  defines  all  its  pou  t  is  either  by  express  grant  or  necessary  and 
rational  implication.  Whenever  the  government,  therefore,  attempts 
to  exercise  any  power  not  granted,  or  fairly  and  reasonably  deduci- 
ble  as  a  necessary  corollary,  to  some  given  power,  it  is  usurpation, 
and  ought  to  be  opposed.  When  I  say  ought  to  be  opposed,  I  cer- 
tainly do  not  me  m  physical  resistance,  for  this  instead  of  remedy- 
ing the  evil  would  increase  it  a  thousand  fold  ;  and  would  be  about 
as  wise  as  the  conduct  of  the  idiot,  who  to  get  rid  of  the  rats  in  his 
house,  put  fire  to  the  building  itself.  If  we  resort  to  this  kind  of 
expedient  for  every  law  which  we  regard  as  unconstitutional,  we 
will  soon  have  according  to  the  frames  of  our  mind,  the  mortifica- 
tion or  pleasure  of  seeing  the  government  of  the  Union  evaporate 
in  smoke,  "  and  like  the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision,  leave  not  a 
wreck  behind."  No  ;  this  is  not  the  course  to  be  pursued.  If  the 
government  is  wrong,  it  is  the  fault  of  those  who  administer  it ;  on 
them  let  your  resentment  fall  ;  scrutinize  closely  the  conduct  of 
those  who  officiate  at  the  altar ;  but  beware  how  you  lay  your 
hands  on  the  altar  itself.  If  Congress  has  done  wrong,  change  its 
members.  If  it  is  objected  that  we  cannot  change  them  in  the  oth- 
er states,  1  answer  it  is  true  ;  but  the  people  there  can  ;  they  have 
the  same  rights  at  stake  that  we  have,  and  surely  we  would  not 
wish  to  elect  our  own  members  and  theirs  too  !  Ours  is  a  govern- 
ment of  common  concession,  and  common  interest  ;  we  meet  in 
Common  council,  and  legislate  for  the  common  good,  they  for  us, 
and  we  for  them,  reciprocally. 

The  people  of  each  state  can  and  will  change  their  own  mem- 
bers whenever  they  displease  them  ;  and  this  shows  the  true  na- 
ture of  this  controversy.  It  is  not  a  contest  between  us  the  people 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  government  on  the  other.  Not  so  :  far 
from  it.  It  is  a  controversy  between  us,  a  minority  of  the  people, 
and  a  large  majority  of  the  same  body  in  other  parts  of  the  Union, 
who  sustain  and  force  the  government  into  the  course  h  haspnrsued. 
This  shews  likewise  the  futility  of  resistance,  for  it  would  not  be  a 
contest  with  the  government  in  which  we  w  ould  be  engaged,  but  on 
the  contrary  with  the  great  mass  of  the  people  who  are  friendly  to  the 
law.  Unless  to  be  sure  we  wish  to  destroy  the  Union,  our  business 
is  with  reason  and  argument  ;  our  weapons  must  be  moral  and  not 
physical,  if  we  expect  to  succeed.  Moral  weapons  belong  to,  and 
are  recognized  by  the  constitution,  physical  weapons  are  of  ajiother 
2 


10 


school,  and  carry  in  their  train  the  destruction  of  that  altar,  and  that 
temple,  at  and  in  which  every  patriot  should  worship. 

I  know  that  so  far  as  the  minority  are  concerned  this  may  be 
considered  as  a  defect  in  our  system  ;  and  that  theoretically  speak- 
in?,  lie  cannot  be  considered  as  free  who  has  to  submit  to  laws 
made  by  men,  over  whom  he  has  no  political  control.  This  is  a 
pi  lusi  )le  difficulty  ;  yet  it  is  one  that  all  free  people  have  had  to 
bear,  and  which  no  human  ingenuity  can  obviate.  How  would  you 
get  clear  of  this  difficulty  here  %  Will  you  annihilate  ihe  state  bound- 
aries altogether,  and  elect  members  of  Congress  by  general  ticket 
throughout  the  nation  ]  This  would  evidently  increase  rather  than 
lessen  the  evil  :  for  the  small  states  would  get  no  members  at  all  ;  and 
in  relation  to  ourselves,  a  candidate  would  only  have  to  proclaim 
himself  hostile  to  certain  doctrines,  and  domestic  institutions  amongst 
ms,  and  he  would  be  elected,  even  if  he  got  not  one  vote  in  the 
state. 

This  project  will,  therefore,  not  do.  What  then  1  Shall  we 
separate  1  This  is  the  only  other  alternative.  We  have  to  remain 
as  lot  are — by  adhering  to  our  present  institutions — consolidate — 
or  separate — choose  ye  between  them.  To  those  who  are  prepared 
foi  separation,  I  have  no  aigument  to  uige  ;  for  argument  and  rea- 
son are  thrown  away  on  insanity.  Insane  and  a  curse  to  his  coun- 
try is  that  man,  who  by  word  or  deed  countenances  the  separation 
of  these  states,  and  richly  does  he  deserve  to 

— —  "  Go  down 

To  the  vile  dust  from  whence  he  sprung, 
Unwept,  unhonor'd,  and  unsung." 

He  who  objects  to  be  legislated  for  by  men,  over  whom  as  con- 
stituent he  has  no  control,  strikes  at  the  root  of  all  government 
whatever,  and  overturns  our  state  institutions,  as  well  as  those  of  the 
Union  :  for  precisely  the  same  difficulties  occur  in  the  one  case  as 
in  the  other.  Each  district  elects  its  own  members,  nor  does  any 
man  pretend  to  claim  the  right  of  voting,  except  in  one  place;  and 
yet  he  is  bound  to  obey  the  laws  passed  by  men  from  other  parts  of 
the  state.  If,  therefore,  he  is  a  slave,  because  he  is  legislated  for 
by  men  in  Congress  from  other  states,  he  is  equally  so  at  home,  and 
in  his  own  state,  and  if  he  would  be  free,  he  must  subvert  both  ty- 
rannies together. 

The  truth  is,  these  objections  are  the  result  of  fanciful  and  theo- 
r  ical  ideas  of  perfection  in  human  institutions,  that  are  utterly  at 
war  with  all  experience  and  common  sense.  There  is  a  morbid 
sensibility,  in  relation  to  restraint  of  every  kind,  at  work  in  this 
State,  at  this  time,  that  is  totally  inconsistent  with  all  government  ; 
and  its  advocates  in  order  to  realize  and  enjoy  this  their  darling 
idol,  would  do  well  to  make  their  way  to  the  wilds  of  the  Missouri, 
where  the  strongest  arm  and  keenest  knife  would  furnish  the  only 
law  to  which  they  wouid  be  subjected. 


11 


NO.  4. 

Before  entering  on  the  main  objections  which  I  entertain 
against  nullification,  permit  me,  in  this  paper,  to  investigate  the 
light  and  title  which  the  party  have  to  the  honorable  designation  of 
republicans.  Whether  they  are  state  rights  men  will  be  seen  here- 
after. The  nullifier,  in  order  to  catch  that  portion  of  the  commu- 
nity who  are  in  the  habit  of  avoiding  the  drudgery  of  thinking,  who 
worship  at  particular  shrines,  and  huzza  for  particular  names,  are 
continually  trumpeting  themselves  as  the  true  republicans,  and  their 
creed  as  the  pure,  genuine,  unmixed  republicanism,  promulgated  by 
Jefferson  and  M  ;dison  in  the  years  '98  and  '99.  If  any  one,  at 
any  time,  has  had  the  hardihood  to  call  in  question  the  soundness  of 
their  creed,  ihey  immediately  exclaimed  against  the  heresy  of  the 
infidel,  and  he  was  forthwith  put  down  by  the  authority  of  Jefferson 
and  Madison.  Mr.  Jefferson,  unfortunately  for  us,  is  no  more  ;  but 
we  have  it  on  record,  over  his  own  signature,  that  on  this  subject, 
lie  and  Mr.  Madison  thought  alike,  so  that  in  arriving  at  the  opinions 
of  he  latter,  we  have  that  of  the  former.  The  late  letter  of  Mr. 
Madison  gives  his  opinion  of  the  doctrine  ;  he  shows  that  it  is  ut- 
terly inconsistent  with  the  integrity  of  the  Union,  and  goes  so  iai 
as  to  assert  that  it  is  only  the  connexion  of  certain  names  that  pre- 
vents it  from  sinking  into  contempt.  If,  therefore,  the  nullified 
claim  to  be  republicans  in  consequence  of  imagining  themselves  the 
disciples  of  Jefferson  and  Madison,  we  have  only  to  say  to  them, 
that  their  master  has  disowned  them,  denounces  their  creed,  and 
treats  it  even  with  contempt.  Mr.  M  idison  has  told  them,  in  lan- 
guage the  most  forcible,  that  their  doctrine  is  incompatible  with  the 
continuance  of  the  Union.  The  mantle  of  these  sages  has,  there- 
fore, not  descended  upon  them  ;  they  are  not  their  disciples,  and 
consequently,  from  this  source,  have  no  claims  to  republicanism. 

In  the  second  place,  permit  me  to  ask  gentlemen  to  explain  a  sin- 
gular inconsistency  into  which  they  have  fallen  in  the  course  of 
their  campaign  in  relation  to  this  same  claim  on  republicanism.  It 
will  be  recollected  that  Gen.  Hayne,  in  his  famous  nullifying  speech, 
delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  on  Foot's  Resolutions, 
took  occasion  to  review  the  conduct  of  the  ultra  federal  and  Hart- 
ford Convention  party  of  New-England  during  the  late  war ;  and 
in  consequence  of  their  factious  opposition  to  the  government,  de- 
scribed them  in  colors  black  as  night,  and  hateful  as  the  cloven- 
footed  prince  of  darkness  himself.  Not  content  with  this,  he  went 
further — hailed  and  lauded  the  then  republican  pany  there,  who 
boldly  came  forward  and  sustained  the  administration,  and  by  every 
mean  in  their  power  opposed  and  reprobaied  the  doctrine  and  con- 
duct of  their  opponents.  General  Hayne  did  this,  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  not  two  years  since,  at  the  very  time,  and  on  the 
very  occasion,  when  he  promulgated  his  nullifying  doctrine,  and 
thus  fell  into  the  amazing  inconsistency  of  sustaining  a  doctrine,  and 
arging  a  course  for  his  party,  which,  at  that  moment,  he  had  con- 


12 


demned  and  reprobated  in  the  federalists  of  New-England."  This 
is  not  all.  It  is  well  known  that  within  the  limiis  of  our  own  state,' 
this  nullifying  party  have  brought  forward  the  conduct  of  these  blue 
lights  of  New-England  as  practical  illustrations  of  their  own  doc- 
trine ;  nay,  have  gone  so  far  as  to  publish  and  distribute  pamphlets, 
containing  a  history  of  their  proceedings,  thus  holding  them  up  to 
public  approbation,  as  worthy  of  imitation  by  all  "  true  republi- 
cans." I  appeal  to  the  public  for  the  truth  of  this  statement,  and 
if  it  is  denied,  can  prove  it,  in  any  court  in  Christendom  :  an  J  yet 
these  nullifiers  have  the  amazing  assurance  to  call  themselves  re- 
publicans. 

Is  it  to  be  "  republican,"  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  the  most 
ultra  federalists  that  our  country  has  ever  produced  1  Or  is  it  to  be 
a  "  friend  of  the  Union"  io  imitate  the  conduct  of  a  most  hateful 
faction,  that  previous  to  our  day  has  ever  attempted  to  sever  Uicse 
states  ]  In  one  moment  we  are  told  that,  this  federal  parry  of  New- 
England  were  a  most  ha'eful  junto,  and  in  the  very  next  breath, 
that  their  conduct  was  nobly  patriotic,  and  will  confer  on  any  person 
who  will  now  follow  in  'heir  steps  the  enviable  name  of  "  true  re- 
publicans ;"  will  the  gentlemen  be  so  good  as  to  let  us  know  when 
we  are  to  believe  them  ?  Shall  it  be  when  they  denounce  these  old 
blue  lights'?  Or  shall  it  be  when  they  call  on  us  to  imitate  their 
glorious  example  ?  If  they  cJa'tn  a  name  from  this  part  of  their  Creed 
or  conduct,  they  must  have  it,  it  is  abeady  cut  and  dried,  fashion* 
ed  and  approved  of  by  (he  public,  and  given,  on  a  former  occasion, 
by  one  of  iheir  own  party  to  that  junto,  whose  conduct  they  are 
now  imitating,  and  is  nothing  mo-e  nor  less  than  ******* 

There  is,  in  the  third  place,  a  very  suspicious  cir  cumstance,  which 
goes  far  to  shew  that  he  who  is  the  very  life-blood  of  the  whole 
doctrine,  has  at  least  his  doubts  as  to  its  "  republicanism,"  and 
which  I  now  beg  leave  to  notice.  It  is  well  known,  in  this  state  at 
least,  who  it  is  that  is  the  greatest  leader  of  the  party  ;  who  it  is 
that  moves  all  the  agents  of  this  creed,  with  the  same  absolute  sway 
as  are  the  wires  of  a  puppet-show,  and  who  it  wasthat  wrote  the  book, 
first  promulgating  the  dogmas,  since  called  the  "  Carolina  Exposi- 
tion." This  pamphlet  was  first  produced  in  Columbia,  during  the 
session  of  1828,  with  singular  mystery;  an  attempt  was  made  to 
palm  it  on  the  House,  as  the  production  of  a  committee  :  and  the 
nullifiers  say  it  contains  the  u  true  doctrine  of  republicanism."  If 
this  latter  assertion  be  true,  why  such  mystery  about  its  authorship  1 
Why  is  the  brat  unclaimed  1  And  why  is  it  that  no  one  is  willing  to 
"  rock  the  cradle"  of  its  infancy,  until,  invigorated  by  time  and  nur- 
ture, it  walks  abroad  in  its  own  strength  1  Is  the  writer  afraid  to 
acknowledge  himself  the  author  of  a  "  republican  pamphlet  ?"  Or  is 
it  true  that  tepublicanism  is  at  so  low  an  ebb  in  the  United  Sia.^s, 
that  in  doing  so,  he  would  injure  his  reputation  1  I  must  be  p  u- 
doned  for  saying  that  this  mystery  furnishes  pretty  strong  evidence 
of  the  author's  own  doub's  on  the  subject,  and  I  must  say  further, 
that  When  the  magister  grcgis  is  unwilling  to  cne'orse,  publicly,  'be 
doctrines  privately  taught|  the  people  have  a  right  to  suspect  that 
Something,  at  least,  is  "  rotten  in  Denmark.'* 


13 


The  circumstances  already  mentioned  go  far  to  show  that  the 
^mllificrs  themselves  are  not  quite  sure  to  what  denomination  they 
belong,  which,  taken  in  connection  with  one  or  two  c.her  difficul- 
ties yet  before  us,  demonstrate,  pretty  clearly,  that  they  may  as 
well  assume  the  name  of  "  delusionists,"  or  "  fire-eaters,"  as  re- 
public an  s. 

If  I  were  to  define  a  republican,  I  would  say,  he  is  one  who 
wishes  to  see  the  government  administered  in  a  spirit  of  economy, 
with  an  eye  single  to  a  strict  and  rational  construction  of  the  consti- 
tution, and  utterly  opposed  to  latitudinarian  isrns  of  every  kind.  If 
we  apply  this  rule  to  the  leaders  of  nullification,  it  will  not  fit  a  sin- 
gle act  of  their  political  lives.  Heretofore,  they  were  found  con- 
struing the  constitution  in  the  most  broad  and  latitudinarian  m  inner, 
in  order  to  obtain  footing  on  which  to  build,  not  only  the  tariff  of 
protection,  passed  in  1816,  but  also  the  United  States  B  nk,  and 
internal  improvement :  and  in  relation  to  these  latter  favorites,  the 
most  of  them  hold  on  yet.  So  opposed  were  they  to  every  thing 
like  economy  and  strict  construction,  that  it  is  a  singular  tact,  that 
these  offences  were  the  charges  brought  against  Judge  Smith  at  the 
election,  when  he  was  turned  out  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
by  Gen.  H  vyne.  It  is  said,  however,  that  they  have  changed.  I 
deny  the  fact.  I  admit  that  there  is  a  change  of  feeling,  but  not 
of principle.  Their  rules  of  construction  are  the  same  now  as  for- 
merly. Heretofore,  they  gave  forced  constructions  of  the  constitu- 
tion, in  order  to  furnish  power  to  the  government  to  effect  their  fa- 
vorite objects  at  the  expense  of  the  states  ;  now  they  resort  to  the 
same  rules  of  construction  ;  nay,  go  further,  and  commit  a  rape  on 
that  instrument,  to  take  from  the  government  the  rights  and  powers 
that  legitimately  belong  to  it,  and  at  the  same  time,  confer  on  the- 
states  those  to  which  they  have,  not  now,  and  never  had,  any  pre- 
tensions. It  is  thus  perfectly  obvious,  that  it  is  their  feelings  and 
not  their  principles  that  are  changed;  they  are  latitudinarian  con- 
structionists still,  and  that  too  of  the  wildest  kind  ;  and  if  this  pre- 
vented them  from  the  legitimate  denomination  of  republicans  here- 
tofore, His  even  so  yet.  Daniel  Webster  is  called  a  federalist,  be- 
cause he  refuses  to  adhere  to  a  close  and  rigid  construction  of  the 
constitution,  and  yet  neither  this  gentleman,  nor  any  other  of  his 
party,  ever  went  the  lengths  that  the  nullifiers  do,  in  forcing  our  po- 
litical compact  from  all  common  sense,  in  order  to  find  footing  on 
which  to  rest  this  their  new  bantling. 

But  I  am  not  yet  done  with  this  question.  How  can  he  be  a  re- 
publican who  maintains  principles  that  strike  at  the  root  of  all  free 
institutions'?  The  nullifier  maintains  that  the  "  majority  are  cor- 
rupt"— "  that  the  minority  have  nothing  to  hope  from  them  ;" 
"  that  the  minority  are  slaves,  and  will  be  oppressed,  unless  you 
give  them  the  power  to  arrest,  at  pleasure,  the  wheels  of  the  govern- 
ment. This  principle  makes  the  whole  subject  to  the  parts — the 
minor  rule  the  major  power,  and  is  more  destructive  to  free  institu- 
tutions  than  the  doctrine  of  the  u  divine  right  of  kings."  It  is  a 
creed  that  goes  no  roundabout  way  to  work,  but  strikes,  at  once,  at 
the  root  of  the  tree,  nor  trunk,  nor  branches,  nor  foliage  is  left  ben 


14 


hind.  If  this  doctrine  prevails,  tyrants  and  despots  are  (irmly  fixed 
in  their  thrones  forever,  while  the  countless  millions,  the  migliiy 
mass  of  human  kind,  may  raise  their  manacled  hands,  and  invoke 
the  spirit  of  free  institutions  and  liberty  in  vain  J 

NO.  5. 

This  creed  claims  for  a  state  the  constitutional  right  super- 
vising, or  reviewing  any  act  of  Congress,  determining  on  its  cons  i- 
tutionality,  and  if  in  its  opinion,  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  rhat 
instrument,  arresting  its  operation,  within  its  borders,  by  means  of 
its  sovereign  veto  ;  the  act  to  remain  so  suspended,  until  Congress 
shall  call  conventions  of  all  the  states  to  determine  the  question  ; 
the  decision  of  three  fourths  of  which,  being  in  favor  of  the  law, 
makes  it  valid,  and  reverses  the  state  veto  :  the  decision  of  seven= 
states  on  the  contrary  being  in  favor  of  the  state,  repeals  the  law, 
makes  it  void,  and  settles  the  constitution  on  that  point  for  ever 
afterwards. 

The  first  impression  made  on  the  mind  after  examining  this  creed 
is  that  of  amazement,  that  any  gentleman  at  all  acquainted  with  the 
nature  of  our  institutions,  should  maintain  this  doctrine,  as  constitu- 
tional, or  at  all  compatible  with  the  progress  of  the  government  or 
integrity  of  the  Union.  The  constitution  was  evidently  given  as  a 
guide  to  conduct  and  control  the  operations  of  the  government  ; 
and  yet  this  creed  deprives  it  of  the  right  of  construing  that  instru- 
ment or  of  acting  under  its  authority  and  places  these  rights  and 
powers  exclusively  in  the  hands  of  the  states  severally.  Why  1 
would  ask  this  inconsistency  1  and  why  give  a  rule  of  conduct,  if  it 
is  not  to  be  acted  under  1  At  this  rate  Congress  has  no  rule,  ex- 
cept the  will  of  the  states,  and  this  will,  from  the  number  of  the 
states,  may  present  itself  in  twenty-four  different  forms,  in  which 
,case  I  would  ask,  who  is  Congress  to  obey  ?  As  I  understand  the 
constitution,  it  requires  a  concurrence  of  three  fourths  of  the  states 
to  alter  or  amend  that  instrument,  and  the  government  is  equally 
authorized  to  pass  laws  that  are  obligatory  on  the  people  by  bare 
majorities  of  its  own  body. 

One  of  the  difficulties  to  this  new  creed,  is,  that  it  imposes  on  the 
government  the  necessity  of  getting  eighteen  states  of  the  twenty- 
four,  to  ratify  its  acts  before  they  are  certainly  valid  :  and  another 
is,  that  it  gives  to  the  state  which  takes  the  start,  and  imposes  the 
veto,  a  politic  d  consequence  more  than  equal  to  seventeen  other 
states,  for  it  requires  eighteen  to  undo  what  it  has  done.  In  addi- 
tion to  these  absurdities,  it  authorizes  one  state  to  suspend  and  seven 
to  govern,  in  all  cases  absolutely,  the  other  seventeen,  and  what  if 
possible,  is  more  absurd  still,  it  authorizes  this  minority  of  seven 
to  alter,  amend,  or  abolish  the  constitution,  at  pleasure. 

I  presume  the  absurdities  here  laid  down,  will  not  be  denied, 
except,  perhaps,  in  the  last  instance,  and  here  it  remains  for  me  to 


15 


prove  the  assertion  made.  1  assert  this  creed  not  only  makes  seven 
states  rule  absolutely  the  balance  of  the  Union,  but  also  enables 
them  to  alter,  amend,  or  abolish  the  constitution  at  their  pleasure ;  and 
now  for  the  proof.  Suppose  Congress  declares  war  ;  a  state  nulli- 
fies the  act  ;  Congress  calls  conventions  of  all  the  states  to  decide 
the  constitutionality  of  the  act  declaring  war  ;  seventeen  states  de- 
cide that  the  act  is  constitutional,  the  other  seven  say  no ;  eighteen 
states  not  having  decided  in  favor  of  the  government,  the  act  is  void, 
and  of  no  force,  and  all  such  acts  in  future  are  to  be  regarded  as  un- 
constitutional; for  the  nullifier  contends  that  the  decision  in  the 
case  is  to  operate  as  an  amendment  to  the  constitution,  and  three 
fourths  of  the  whole,  or  eighteen  states,  being  necessary  to  an  amend- 
ment, and  there  not  being  that  number  in  favor  of  the  act,  the 
amendment  has  not  prevailed,  and  consequently  the  clause  is  fixed 
and  made  offeree  in  future  by  the  vote  of  the  seven  states,  the  sev- 
enteen to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

Take  another  case,  suppose  Congress  should  see  proper  to  pass 
a  declaratory  law,  asserting  that  slaves  are  personal  property,  that 
Congress  has  no  control  over  them,  and  that  under  the  constitu- 
tion that  body  has  no  power  to  emancipate  them.  We  of  the 
south  would  have  no  objection  to  this  act ;  but  Ohio,  if  you  please, 
nullifies  it  ;  Congress  calls  conventions  to  determine  the  question, 
eighteen  states  are  not  found  in  favor  of  the  act ;  but  on  the  con- 
trary, seven  say  it  is  an  unconstitutional  act,  the  law  is  upset,  and 
the  consequence  is  a  new  clause  to  the  constitution,  denying  that 
slaves  are  personal  property,  and  affirming  for  Congress  the  right 
to  emancipate  them  at  pleasure. 

Take  another  case,  suppose  Congress  pass  a  declaratory  law  as- 
serting that  the  states  are  sovereign  in  all  those  cases  of  power  that 
are  not  expressly  surrendered  to  the  General  Government  and  that 
the  constitution  is  to  be  the  exclusive  guide  and  controller  of  the  go- 
vernment in  all  its  acts  :  a  state  nullifies  it,  conventions  ate  called, 
and  seven  states  are  found  to  say  that  the  whole  act  is  unconstitu- 
tional, eighteen  not  being  for  it,  the  act  is  null  and  void.  What  is 
the  consequence?  a  new  clause  to  the  constitution,  which  annihi- 
lates the  reserved  rights  of  the  states,  and  repeals  the  whole  consti- 
tution and  substituting  therefore  the  will  of  Congress  in  all  cases. 
Now  if  this  would  not  produce  a  grand  consolidated  government, 
without  limitation  of  power,  I  know  nothing  that  would  ;  nor  do  I 
believe  a  better  plan  could  be  devised,  for  that  purpose,  than  for  the 
states  to  submit  to  the  practical  operation  of  this  creed.  If  the 
doctrine  did  not  have  the  credit  of  separating  the  states,  it  would  at 
least  consolidate  them;  if  it  did  not  leave  us  in  anatchy,  we  would 
have  no  cause  to  exclaim  at  the  absence  of  despotism. 

But  take  another  c.tse,  suppose  Congress  passes  a  law  in  relation 
to  the  next  ratio  of  representation  in  that  body  from  the  different 
states,  and  directing  that  all  free  whites  and  three-fifths  of  the  blacks 
should  be  represented,  as  at  present  we  understand  the  constitution. 
Rhode-Island  nullifies  the  act  on  the  ground  that  none  other  than 
citizens  are  entitled  to  be  represented,  conventions  are  called  to 
settle  the  question,  and  seven  states  are  found  to  entertain  the  same 


16 


opinion,  the  government  has  not  gotten  eighteen  states  to  sustain 
her,  the  law  is  abandoned,  citizens  only  are  to  be  represented,  and 
the  southern  states  hereafter  iose  twenty  two  members  in  Congress, 
and  thus  we  are  deprived  of  our  rights  and  in  our  opinion  the  con- 
stitution palpably  altered  by  the  vote  of  seven  states,  the  wishes  of 
the  whole  government  and  the  other  seventeen  states  to  the  contra- 
ry notwithstanding. 

I  flatter  myself  that  I  am  clearly  understood,  lest  however  I 
should  be  mistaken,  I  beg  leave  to  recapitulate.  The  doctrine  of 
nullification  contends,  that  when  a  state  nullifies,  the  general  go- 
vernment is  bound  to  acquiesce,  and  unless  she  can  get  the  con- 
currence ot  eighteen  or  three  fourths  of  the  states  in  favor  of  the 
constitutionality  of  the  act  nullified,  it  falls  to  the  ground,  and  of 
course  any  act  of  the  same  character,  in  future,  is  unauthoiized  and 
unconstitutional.  If  this  creed  be  true,  then  it  is  perfectly  clear 
that  a  junto  of  seven  states  have  it  in  their  power  not  only  to  con- 
trol completely,  the  whole  operation  of  government,  but  to  repeal 
every  law  that  the  government  has  ever  enacted  from  its  creation 
to  the  present  time,  and  in  doing  so  of  depriving  the  government  of 
all  authority  to  act  in  any  shape,  manner,  or  form. 

Now  if  I  had  not  one  other  objection  to  urge  to  this  creed,  it 
would  appear  that  what  has  already  been  said  is  amply  sufficient  to 
show  the  utter  inadmissibility  of  such  a  construction  to  our  political 
compact.  Tt  is  a  construction  that  enables  a  small  minority,  not 
only  in  all  cases  to  govern  the  majority,  but  also  to  amend  or  de- 
stroy the  constitution  itself,  at  pleasure  !  Common  sense  can  yield 
to  neither  of  them. 

It  is  no  answer  to  tell  me  that  in  some  of  the  cases  put,  it  is  not 
•probable  the  difficulty  would  occur,  the  states  not  having  it  in  their 
power  to  reach  the  law  so  as  to  nullify.  If  this  objection  to  what  I 
have  said  be  urged,  1  will  for  the  sake  of  argument  admit  it,  and  in 
doing  so,  the  nullifier  will  find  that  in  the  changing  of  his  position 
he  has  not  improved  it,  but  on  the  < ontrary  renJeied  himself  liable 
to  an  objection  of  great  force  from  another  quarter. 

If  it  be  objected  that  in  the  two  intermediate  cases  put,  the  pow- 
er on  the  part  of  the  state  to  nullify,  c  nnot  be  brought  to  operate, 
in  consequence  of  1 here  being  nothimr  on  Which  to  act,  and  that  con- 
sequently from  the  evils  noticed  and  objections  utged  we  have  no- 
thing to  fear  :  I  reply  that  this  objection  strikes  at  the  root  of  the 
remedy  by  nullification  altogether  ;  for  that  doctrine  which  is  to 
operate  on  human  action,  cannot  he  sound,  if  it  cannot  be  made  10 
meet  the  evil  complained  of.  If  the  constitution  intended  nuliilicu- 
tion  as  a  remedy  for  its  own  violations,  it  surely  exhibited  little 
foresight  on  the  part  of  its  framers,  thus  to  devise  one  tfbat  cannot 
be  brought  to  operate  in  a  tenth  of  the  cases  occurring.  Indeed  this 
is  one  of  the  objections  fairly  urgeable  against  the  whole  creed,  that, 
only  here  and  there  could  be  a  law  found  that  could  he  practicat/y 
nullified.  If,  however,  the  nullifier  intends  to  assert  that  the  single 
fact  of  a  state's  placing  its  veto  on  an  act  of  Congress,  imposes  upon 
that  body  the  obligation  of  calling  conventions,  «fcc.  then  the  whole 
objections  urged  remain  in  full  force,  and  I  defy  the  party  to  eel 


It 


clear  of  them.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  admitted  that  very  few 
acts  of  Congress,  from  their  nature  can  be  practically  nullified,  'hen 
the  creed  falls  to  the  ground  from  its  own  inefficiency  ;  for  it  is  im- 
material what  the  virtue  of  a  remedy  is,  if  it  cannot  be  adminis- 
tered. 

If  gentlemen  are  not  satisfied  with  the  objections  thus  far  urged, 
pray  let  us  pass  on,  for;  if  1  am  not  mistaken  there  is  much  before  us 
yet. 

In  the  first  place  the  state  is  to  stop  the  operation  of  the  act  of 
Congress  :  the  law  is  to  be  suspender),  within  its  borders,  by  state 
authority  in  some  shape  or  other.  Every  one  will  see  that  this 
step  is  necessary  in  order  to  arrive  at  the  next  stage  in  the  process, 
for  Congress  is  to  be  forced  to  call  conventions,  and  it  is  perfectly 
obvious  that  there  could  be  no  inducement  on  the  part  of  that  bady 
to  do  so,  if  her  laws  are  permitted  to  continue  in  operation.  Alt 
the  government  can  ask,  all  it  can  wish,  under  the  most  favorable 
circumstances,  is,  to  see  its  laws  obeyed,  and  while  this  state  of 
tilings  continue,  it  is  very  clear  there  will  be  no  conventions  sum- 
moned by  its  authority.  Now  I  ask  gentlemen  to  tell  me  how  this 
is  to  be  done?  Some  few  nullifiers  of  the  up  couirry,  have  pro- 
posed to  use  the  instrumentality  of  the  United  States' District  Court 
for  this  purpose,  and  as  this  project  forms  a  kind -of  episode  in  this 
grand  epic  of  nullification,  I  beg  leave  to  dispose  of  it  before  I  go 
further.  The  only  objection  I  have  to  this  project  of  a  court  nul- 
lification, is  its  futility,  and  the  ridicule  that  would  necessarily  at- 
tach to  the  state  assuming  the  pompous  attitude  of  sovereignty,  for 
the  purpose  of  enabling  a  citizen  to  be  sued  on  his  bond  given  for 
duties,  and  thus  getting  a  decision  of  the  District  Court.  Every 
one  must  know  that  this  would  result  in  a  force  ;  but  to  those  who 
still  contend  for  this  remedy,  I  beg  leave  to  put  a  few  plain  ques- 
tions. The  object  of  going  into  court  is  to  get  the  verdict  of  a 
jury  ;  for  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  all  the  judges  will  decide 
against  us.  Consequently  if  we  cannot  get  at  this  verdict,  even  ad- 
mi  ting  tKat  \\  would  be  for  us,  which  I  regard  as  very  doubtful, 
the  remedy  must  fail,  and  lor  this  purpose  permit  me  to  ask, 

1st.  Is  not  the  constitutionality  of  the  tariff  law  a  pure  law  ques- 
tion 1  r.rxl  is  ir  not  ihe  particular  province  of  a  judge  to  decide  all 
questions  of  law  unmixed  with  facts  1 

2d.  Do  not  these  gentlemen  know  that  the  practice  on  these 
bonds  is  to  take  judgment  on  mere  motion  before  the  judge,  the 
first  term,  without  emparlance,  and  that  the  defendant  is  not  allow- 
ed to  be  heard,  except  he  will  swear  that  there  has  been  a  mistake 
made  in  calculating  the  duties?  And  in  the  third  place  I  would 
ask  whether  in  cases  of  appeal,  the  Supreme  Court  does  not,  in 
cases  reversed,  enter  up  its  own  judgment,  instead  of  sending  it 
back  to  the  court  below  ?  I  put  these  questions  to  the  candor  of 
persons  acquainted  with  such  matters,  and  ask  them,  under  these 
circumstances,  how  the  case  can  be  gotten  to  a  jury  at  all?  If  it 
is  replied  that  the  constitution  guarantees  the  right  .of  trial  by  juiryj 
I  respond  and  admit  the  fact,  in  all  proper  cases,  but  not  here. 
Tins  is  a  tax,  and  that  makes  the  dniereace.  Look  at  home,  botf 
3 


18 


does  your  own  state  do  1  your  own  legislature  ?  They  tax  you, 
and  if  it  is  not  paid  on  the  day,  the  collector  issues  an  execution 
instanter,  without  the  intervention  of  court  or  jury. 

The  difficulties  here  noted  seem  to  be  admitted  by  the  party,  for 
a  new  project  has  been  suggested  ;  the  merchant  is  to  refuse  to  en- 
ter his  goods  at  the  custom-house,  permit  them  to  be  seized  and 
then  bring  his  action  of  replevin.  This  is  a  miserable  expedient  t 
first,  because  it  would  completely  hang  up  the"  business  of  the  mer- 
chant, for  he  would  have  to  give  bond  in  double  the  value  conditions 
ed  to  return  the  goods  if  the  suit  went  against  him  :  and  secondly, 
because  by  taking  this  course,  ten  to  one  he  would  forfeit  the  goods 
altogether  :  and  I  now  put  it  to  the  nullifier  to  say  whether  if  a  man 
refus.es  to  enter  his  goods,  or  in  any  other  way  attempts  to  defraud 
the  custom-house,  is  he  not  in  the  eye  of  the  law  a  smuggler  and  his 
goods  forfeited  accordingly"? 

But  let  us  go  on,  the  party  thus  acting  throws  off  his  allegiance 
to  the  government  altogether,  and  refuses  to  pay  all  taxes,  as  well 
those  laid  for  revenue,  as  those  for  protection,  and  place*  himself  in 
the  singular  predicament  of  a  being  who  claims  the  protection  of 
the  government, -while  as  a  citizen  he  will  make  no  return;  nay 
more,  asks  the  courts  of  the  government  whose  laws  he  thus  re/uses 
to  obey,  to  protect  him  in  that  disobedience  !  Indeed  this  self 
same  objection  applies  to  those  who  refuse  to  pay  their  bonds  ;  for 
judgment  must  pass  for  all  or  none.  Now  what  is  right  in  one  citi- 
zen is  equally  so  in  another  :  suppose  all  do  so  ?  all  refuse  to  pay  I 
How  long  will  the  government  of  our  country  last?  He  who  can 
recommend  this  course,  or  aid  and  abet  another  in  it,  may  trumpet 
his  patriotism  as  much  as  he  pleases,  but  his 'acts  prove  him  the  ene- 
my of  his  country,  if  not  of  freedom  itself. 

The  truth  is  this  whole  bond  system  of  procedure  is  a  catch- 
penny  affair,  thrown  out  in  a  particular  region  of  the  state,  to  lull 
the  indignation  of  the  people,  and  to  make  them  believe  that  the 
only  contest  would  be  of  lawyer's  tongues,  it  certainly  is  not  recog- 
nised by  the  "  Exposition,"  nor  by  Messrs.  Hayne's,  Rowan's,  or 
Grundy's  speeches  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  on  the  sub- 
ject ;  nor,  as  far  as  I  know,  by  the  Mercury  junto  in  Charleston. 
Indeed  it  is  an  abandonment  of  the  whole  doctiine  of  state  sove- 
reignty, for  the  state  virtually  admits  that  she  has  no  power  to  act, 
when  she  bows  to  this  petty  tribunal.  The  doctrine  of  nullifica- 
tion is,  that  the  state  is  to  arrest  the  law  by  virtue  of  its  sovereign' 
ty,  and  it  must  be  a  poor  sovereignty  indeed  that  is  reduced  to  this 
dilemma.  Sovereignty  petitioning  the  district  court  for  a  boon  !  ! 
Alas  for  poor  human  nature  ;  how  weak  its  fancied  strength  !  !  and 
how  shallow,  too  often,  its  best  devices  !!  "  Tell  it  not  in  Gath, 
publish  it  not  in  the  streets  of  Askelon,"  the  new  baptised  state 
rights  men  of  Carolina,  after  rejecting  the  jurisdiction  of  the  su- 
preme court  and  charging  it  as  a  crime  in  any  one  who  yielded  to 
it,  are  now  urging  the  surrender  of  their  state  sovereignty  to  th« 
lowest  tribunal  known  to  the  laws  ! ! 

But,  paulo  majora  canamus.  Let  us  be  done  with  this  little  af- 
fair, and  inquire  in  the  next  place,  how  the  state  is  to  arrest  the 


19 


operation  of  this  law  ;  for  that,  I  take  it,  is  the  true  question 
There  are  two  ways;  first,  to  pass  a  law  making  it  an  indictable 
offence  to  collect  the  duties  :  and  secondly  to  authorize  the  Gover- 
nor to  take  possession  of  the  custom-house,  and  resist  the  collection 
by  force,  and  if  there  is  any  other  plan  I~know  it  not.*  One  mo- 
ment's reflection,  on  the  nature  of  the  first  of  these  plans  will  satis- 
fy us  that  it  would  fail,  if  from  no  other  reason,  because  the  custom- 
house officers  when  indicted,  if  convicted,  under  the  constitution  would 
be  enabled  to  carry  their  cause  to  the  supreme  court,  and  from  that 
body  we  have  nothing  to  hope  in  a  crusade  of  this  kind.  Indeed 
from  our  own  courts  we  could  not  calculate  on  being  sustained  in 
so  unholy  a  cause,  nor  do  I  believe  that  there  is  a  judge  in  the  state, 
who  would  not  pronounce  such  a  state  law  unconstitutional.  But  sup- 
pose they  did  not,  suppose  that  party  feeling  got  the  better  of  good 
sense,  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  the  decision  of  the  supreme 
court,  and  there  the  matter  would  end.  I  am  not  one  of  those  who 
think  that  the  supreme  court  has  the  power  to  call  a  state  to  its  bar  ; 
but  at  the  same  time  it  is  very  clear  that  the  government  must  have 
the  power  to  enforce  its  revenue  laws  and  protect  its  officers  while 
in  the  discharge  of  their  duty.  That  the  government  has  this  pow- 
er, and  ought  to  exercise  it,  I  have  no  doubt,  and  if  the  state  re- 
fuses submission,  she  must  maintain  herself  by  force,  or  secede. 

But  the  second  plan,  and  indeed  the  only  rational  and  manly  one, 
if  the  paity  intend  to  act  up  to  their  creed,  is  to  take  possession  of 
the  custom-house,  and  resist  the  collection  of  the  duties  by  execu- 
tive authority.  This,  I  take  it,  is  really  what  is  meant  by  arresting 
the  law  by  virtue  of  a  sovereign  veto,  I  can  understand  it  in  no  oth- 
er way,  and  if  I  am  wrong,  I  hope  the  gentlemen  will  explain.  It 
is  true  that  this  plan  has  not  been  much  urged  except  by  mysterious 
hints,  and  dark  inuendoes,  and  the  reason  is  very  obvious,  it  is  too 
plain,  too  clear,  too  much  an  affair  of  common  sense,  every  man 
would  be  able  to  take  it#in,  and  all  would  know  that  when  the  state 
assumed  this  high  handed  position,  civil  war  would  be  inevitable. 
The  party  know  that  the  people  are  not  prepared  for  this,  and, 
therefore,  there  is  as  much  as  possible,  a  veil  drawn  over  this  part 
of  the  scene.  Raise  the  curtain,  gentlemen,  and  shew  us  the  full 
face  of  your  project,  and  let  us  see  whether  it  is  not  more  hateful, 
more  deformed,  and  more  disgusting,  than  that  of  the  veiled  pro- 
phet of  Chorazin  himself. 


NO.  6. 

I  have  asserted  that  the  direct  arresting  of  the  operation  of 
the  tariff  law  by  state  authority,  would  induce  civil  war:  permit 
me  to  illustrate  this  point  more  fully,  before  I  proceed  further.  I 
admit  that  if  the  law  was  an  indifferent  one,  with  which  the  opera- 
tion of  the  government  was  in  no  way  connected,  that  then,  and  in 
that  case,  the  government,  rather  than  come  to  collision  with  the 


20 


state,  might,  and  probab'ywould,  waive  its  rights  and  pay  no  atten- 
tion to  the  matter.  Indeed  it  is*higjily  probable  that  there  are  many 
laws,  passed  by  Congress,  that  in  no  instance  have  been  executed  from 
the  fact  that  they  have  remained  uncalled  for  ;  the  rights  of  the 
people,  anjl  the  necessities  of  the  government,  being  secured  with- 
out their  aid  or  assisiance.  There  are,  however,  certain  cardinal 
laics,  on  the  prompt  execution  of  which  depends,  not  only  the  wel- 
fare, but  even  the  existence  of  the  government ;  and  lie  can  have 
very  little  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  these  things,  who  expects  to 
see  it  stand  idly  by,  and  permit  laws  of  this  character  arrested  with 
impunity. 

Precisely  of  -this  sort  is  the  law  in  question  ;  one  which  of  all 
others  the,  governmenr  will  sustain,  and  execute  the  most  promptly, 
because  from  it  is  drawn  its  whole  monied  income,  as  well  to  meet  its 
necessary  expenses  as  to  discharge  the  public  debt.  There  are 
three  reasons  that  should  satisfy  us  that  this  law,  until  modified  or 
repealed,  will  be  enforced,  "  at  all  and  every  hazard."  The  first 
is  the  President's  oath  of  office,  he  being  sworn  "  to  execute  the 
laws  faithfully  and  this  one  belongs  peculiarly  to  his  depaitment. 
The  second  is  the  influence  of  public  opinion  ;  the  majority  of  the 
people  being  clearly  convinced  that  it  is  necessary  to  their  prosperi- 
ty ;  and  the  third  is,  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  case,  the  govern- 
ment not  being  able  to  carry  on  its  operations  without  its  revenue,- 
and  which  is  well  known  to  be  drayn  almost  entirely  from  this 
source.  While,  therefore,  the  government- has  the  power  to  en- 
force, it  is  unreasonable  to  expect  to  see  it  take  any  other  course; 
and  under  these  circumstances  I  feel  well  warranted  in  saying  that 
5uch  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  state  would  produce  civil  war. 

If  it  be  urged  that  the  stopping  the  law  in  this  state,  will  not  have 
that  effect  in  the  others,  and  that  consequently  the  revenue  will  be 
impaired  only  to  a  small  extent  ;  I  answer,  by  denying  the  fact ;  and 
assert,  that  if  the  law  is  constitutionally  arrested  here,  and  the  peo- 
ple exonerated  from  payment,  that  this  exemption  operates  forth- 
with throughout  the  Uninn  ;  for  the  constitution  expiessly  declares 
"that  all  duties,  imposts  and  excises,  shall  be  uniform  throughout 
the  United  States. *?  It  is  therefore  perfectly  obvious,  that  if  the 
people  of  ofte^state  get  clear,  or  exempt  from  legal  liability  to  pay,  so 
are  all  the  others. 

But  how  unreasonable,  and  even  dishonorable,  is  the  natuie  of 
our  demands  !  We  claim  in  the  first  place  to  make  our  own  laws,, 
and  refuse  to  obey  those  of  Congress,  in  such  way,  as  by  necessary 
consequence  to  dictate  to  the  other  states  of  the  Union  !  In  the 
second  place  we  propose  to  stay  in  the  Union,  participate  in  its  ben- 
efits and  protection,  and  yet  refuse  to  bear  any  part  of  its  burthens, 
.unless  the  whole  of  the  other  states  will  bow  to,  and  acknowledge  the 
supremacy  of  Carolina  !  And  in  the  third  place,  and  what  is  worse 
still,  we  propose  to  take  this  course,  refuse  obedience  to  the  laws  of 
the  Union,  refuse  to  bear  any  part  of  its  expenses,  and  yet  send  our 
delegates  as  usual  to  participate  in  the  deliberations  of  the  National 
Councils!  Am  I  mistaken  or  am  I  wrong  when  I  say,  that  under 
■these  circumstances,  no  honorable  man  would  accept  the  station  ? 


21 


But  let  us  pass  on,  for  there  are  many  difficulties  before  us#yet. 
As  I  understand  the  nullifying  process,  it  is  to  opeiate  as  an  amend- 
ment to  the  constitution,  and  the  act  of  Congress  nullified,  is  to  be 
considered  as  the  proposed  amendment,  and'  which  ol  course  fails  if 
eighteen  states  do  not  ratify :  and  Congress  is  forced  to  the  sub- 
mission of  this  question,  in  consequence  of  the  resis.ance  of  the  la.w 
on  the  part  of  the  state.  To.  me  this  is  a  new  clause  to  the  consti- 
tution. There  •lire  only  two  authorities  that  Rave  a  right  to  pro- 
pose amendments  to  that  instrument.  The  first  is  tfoe  Congress  of 
the  United  States  itself,  it  may  do  so  at  pleasure  ;  but  when  it  does 
so,  it  is  compelled  t&  'pass  its  proposed  amendments  by  a  vote  of 
two  thirds  of  both  branches  of  its  own  body;  and  then,  and  not  till 
then,  is  the  amendment  sent  to  the  legislatures  or  conventions  in 
each  of  the  states,  as  Congress  may  direct  for  ratification.  This 
p  ssing  by  two  thirds  is  an  indispensable  first  step,  on  the  part  of 
Congress,  without  which  no  amendment,  or  paper  intended  to  ope- 
rate  as  an  amendment,  can  be  submitted  to  the  states  for  ratifica- 
tion, by  that  body,  without  the  most  manifest  violation  of  the  con- 
stitution. I  refer  to  the  fifth  article  of  the  constitution  and  chal- 
lenge contradiction.  The,  tariff  law,  therefore,  not  having  been 
passed  by  a  voto  of  two  thirds  of  Congress,  can  never  be  submitted 
to  the  states  for  ratification.  So  that  this  expedient  of  forcing  Con- 
gress to  send  its  laws  to  the  states  for  ratification  as  an  amendment 
to  the  constitution,  must  inevitably  fail  in  all  those  cases,  where 
they  have  not  in  the  first  place  been  passed  by  a  majority  of  two 
tjlirds,  and  t|iis  furnishes  an  insurmountable  obstacle  to  the  pro- 
ject ;  were  we  even  to  set  aside  the  absurdity  of  calling  a  law  pass- 
ed palpably  for  other  purposes,  an  amendment  to  the  constitution. 

If  it  be  contended  that  Congress  may  act  in  this  matter  by  a  bare 
majority,  on  the  application  of  the  states,  I  admit  it ;  but  in  doing 
so  the  nullifier  will  find  that  in  this  change  of  his  position,  he  is  very 
far  from  bettering  it.  In  the  first  place,  when  Congress  acts  at  the 
requisitions  of  the  states  it  must  be  a  number  not  less  than  sixteen 
or  two  thirds  of  the  whole  states  that  make  the  call;  otheiwise  no 
attention  can  be  paid  to  it.  So  that  if  we  put  the  remedy  on  this 
footing,  it  cannot  even  be  started  by  the  call  of  one  state,  indeed 
any  number  less  than  the  two  thirds.  But  this  is  not  all ;  no  state 
has  a  right  Xo^jpropose  amendments.  Oh  the  application  of  sixteen 
states  Congress  calls  a  general  convention,  composed  of  delegates 
from  all  the  states,  and  this  convention  may  propose  amendments, 
which  having  passed  that  body,  are  to  be  sent,  as  in  the  case  of 
Congressional  amendments,  to  the  states  for  ratification.  When 
the  states,  therefore,  apply  to  Congress,  what  is  it  for  %  Is  it  pre- 
senting amendments  on  their  parts  ?  Not  so.  No  such  thing.  The 
states  have  no  authority  to  do  so  :  ten,  twenty,  twenty-four  states, 
cant  do  it,  much  less  one.  I  beg  you  to  turn  to  the  fifth  article  of 
the  constitution  and  read  for  yourself.  The  application  of  the 
states  is  for  Congress  to  call  a  convention,  which  convention  may 
propose  amendtnents,  and  which  amendments  are  to  be  sent  to  the 
states  for  ratification,  as  just  stated  :  and  1  now  assert  that  there 


22 


are  no  other  authorities  known  to  the  constitution,  that  have  the 
right  to  propose  amendments  except  the  two  here  specified. 

How  then  c;tn  the  .nullifying  process  work?  I  have  just  shewn 
that  the  tariff  law  cannot  be  considered  as  an  amendment,  nor  can 
it  be  presented  to  the  states  for  ratification,  because  it  was  not 
passed  in  Congress  by  a  majority  of  two  thirds,  and  because  it  is  a 
violation  of  the  lules  of  common  sense,  to  call  an  act,  signed  by  the 
President,  an  amendment  of  the  constitution,  when  it  was  notori- 
ously passed  for  other  purposes.  The  gentlemen  nullifieis  com- 
plain bitterly  that  Congress  has  passed  a  tariff,  ostensibly  for  reve- 
nue, when, the  real  motive  was  protection,  and  on  this  account  as- 
sert that  it  is  a  palpable  violation  of  the  constitution  :  and  yet  pre- 
sent a  scheme  of  their  own,  which  calls  an  act  of  Congress,  passed 
by  a  bare  majority,  and  signed  by  the  President,  an  amendment  of 
the  constitution,  and  which  they  propose  to  submit  to  the  stales  for 
ratification,  in  the  very  teeth  of  the  instrument  itself!  !  To  what 
miserable  expedients  and  shifts  are  men  sometimes  driven  to  main- 
tain a  favorite  hobby  !  ! 

But  shall  the  state  veto  or  process  of  nullification,  be  considered 
as  the  proposed  amendment  ?  This  cannot  be,  because  as  I  have 
just  shown  no  state  has  a  right  to  propose  amendments.  But  sup- 
pose a  state  has  this  right,  and  suppose  Congress  is  bound  to  obey 
its  call,  even  then  the  state  veto  would  not  be  sefct  by  Congress  to 
the  states  for  ratification,  but  would  have  to  go  to  a  general  con- 
vention called  by  Congress  ;  for  it  must  be  remembered,  that  when 
Congress  acts  at  the  requisition  of  the  states,  all  it  ha^s  to  do,  is  to 
call  a  convention,  and  whatever  is  done,  is  done  by.  it,  and  then 
sent  to  the  states  for  ratification.  But  here  again  is  a  difficulty 
for  that  body  does  not  act  on  matter  submitted  to  it,  but  proposes 
amendments  itself.  Let  us  pass  over  this  difficulty,  however,  and 
suppose  that  the  question  of  the  state  veto  is  not  only  entertained 
by  the  convention,  but  approbated  and  agreed  to,  and  then  sent  to 
the  states  for  ratification  as  an  amendment  to  the  constitution  ;  does 
not  every  one  see,  that  this  position  imposes  upon  us  the  necessity 
of  getting  eighteen  or  three  fourths  of  the  states,  in  favor  of  our  pro- 
ject, for  three  fourths  must  ratify  or  the  amendment  fails'?  And  is 
there  a  man  in  his  senses  in  the  state  that  believes  that  such  would 
be  the  result  1 

But  again,  the  constitution  prescribes  the  form  of  its  own  amend- 
ments, and  unless  those  forms  are  complied  with,  it  is  perfectly  evi- 
dent it  was  intended  it  should  remain  as  it  is.  Here,  however,  we 
have  in  this  new  doctrine,  a  plan  for  amending,  that  operates  inversely 
to  the  intention  of  the  amending  power.  For  instance,  if  the  constitu- 
tional majority  agree  to  ratify  the  proposed  amendment ;  then  it  is 
no  amendment,  but  merely  a  declaration  of  what  the  constitution  is; 
and  a  kind  of  endorsement  to  the  validity  of  the  law  nullified  :  if  on 
the  contrary,  however,  the  constitutional  majority  are  not  found  in 
favor  of  ratifying  the  proposed  amendment,  then,  and  in  that  case, 
the  amendment  prevails,  and  becomes  part  and  parcel  of  the  con- 
stitution ! !  Thus  we  see,  that  the  very  fact  that  the  amending 
power  determines  to  amend,  defeats  its  own  object :  while  on  the 


23 

contrary,  if  they  see  .no.  cause  for  it,,  and  determine  against  the 
cliange,  "  the  deed  is  done,"  and  the  charter  of  our  Union  assumes 
anew  character.  If  tlfts  creed',  this  nullifying  creed,  is  not  hocus 
pocus  or  legerdemain  in  perfection,  1  know  not  what  is. 
•  Again,  get  over  all  these  difficulties,  clear  them  all  away,  and 
bring  the  matter  fairly  and  fully  before  the  several  states,  either  in 
convention  or  by  their  legislatures,  for  final  decision,  and  I  deny 
that  they  can  act  at  all  :  because  they  have  no  judicial  functions, 
The  only,  authority  they  have,  is  derived  from  the  constitution,  and 
that  is  to  ratify  amendments,  regularly  before  them.  Amending, 
or  ratifying  amendments  to  the  constitution,  is  totally  a  different 
ihing,  from  adjudicating  the  laws  of  the  country.  The  one  pro- 
poses change  or  alteration  in  the  charter  of  our  Union:  the  other 
determines  what  the  late  is,  and  is  directly  opposed  to  all  change. 
It  is  the  province  of  legislative  authority  to  make  or  change  laws, 
of  judicial  authority  to  expound  them  :  and  if  these  state  conven- 
tions have  this  latter  power,  I  call  for  its  exhibition  ;  shew  it  to  me, 
and  tell  me  from  what  source  it  is  drawn.  In  the  case  before  us, 
the  legislatures  or  conventions  of  the  states  have  their  power  clear- 
ly marked  out  by  the  constitution,  and  the  sum  and  substance  of  it 
\s,  to  ratify  amendments  to  that  instrument:  not  to  set  in  judg- 
ment on  the  constitutionality  of  laws  in  existence,  nor  can  they  do 
so  without  the  most  manifest  usurpation. 

I  beg  here  to  be  understood,  I  am  speaking  of  conventions, 
known  to,  and  recognized  by,  the  constitution,  and  into  whose  hands 
that  instrument  has  submitted  the  ratification  of  all  its  own  amend- 
ments; for  1  am  well  aware  that  there  is  another  kind  of  conven- 
tion, sometimes  chosen  by  a  people,  to  lay  anew  the  whole  foun- 
dations of  their  government,  whose  power  is  unlimited ;  which 
holds  in  its  hands  the  attributes  of  sovereignty  as  well  as  of  revolu- 
tion— for  it  you  can  lay  down  no  rules — prescribe  no  bounds — its 
powei  is  commensurate  with  its'  will ;  nor  is  it  responsible  to  any 
tribunal  on  earth.  To  this  kind  of  power,  I  hope  no  man  in  the 
country  would  willingly  submit  the  reserved  rights  of  the  state : 
for  it  would  in  effect  be  making  a  revolutionary  junto,  composed  of 
men  who  have  in  common  with  us,  no  feelings  of  sympathy,  sitting 
perhaps  in  an  extreme  corner  of  the  Union,  the  absolute  arbiters 
of  all  we  are,  and  all  we  have. 

But  I  have  an  objection  to  this  doctrine,  drawn  from  another 
source,  and  to  which  I  beg  leave  to  refer  before  I  close  this  paper. 
I  can  regard  it  in  no  other  light  than  a  complete  surrender,  in  the 
end,  of  the  whole  reserved  rights  of  the  state.  That  it  is  so,  in  its 
practical  operation,  I  have  already  shown  in  a  former  paper.  Let 
me  ask  gentlemen  on  what  foundation  do  they  stand,  when  they 
propose  to  submit  the  reserved  rights  of  the  state  to  a  tribunal  thus 
organized  and  composed  entirely  of  our  opponents  ?  The  law  of 
which  we  complain,  was  imposed  on  us,  by  the  very  party  whom 
in  our  wisdom,  we  would  make  the  final  judges  in  the  case:  and 
our  chance  of  success  depends  on  the  fact,  that  this  party  should 
undo  what  they  have  just  done ;  and  at  the  same  time  acknowledge 
that  they  had  violated  their  oaths — and  violated  the  constitution, 


24 


and  this  too  from  the  meanest  and  most  .ignoble  of  motives  ! !  Idioc^ 
itself,  as  it  appears  to  me,  could  not  calculate  on  success  in  a  case 
of  this  kind.  Can  gentlemen  have  any  just  claim  to  being  consid- 
ered  the  friends  of  state  rights,  who  are  thus  willing  to  surrender  all 
of  them  to  a  tribunal  of  this  kind,  or  indeed  of  any  kind  1  I  under-  • 
stand  by  reserved  rights,  such  as  the  state  keeps  to  herself  exclu- 
sively, ami  whic  h  is  in  no  case  to  be  submitted  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
any  tribunal.  And  yet  ihe  nullifier,  after  dressing  in  a  coat  of  mail 
and  making  a  pompous  display  of  state  sovereignty,  submits  all, 
yea  all,  and  that  voluntarily  too,  to  the  arbitrament  of  their  oppo- 
nents !  !  They  are  the  true.  "  submissionists" — [he  ichole  hog  gen- 
try, who  reserve  no  rights  to  the  states,  but  surrender  them  in  mass, 
nor  leave  even  "  a  rose  on  the  stock  to  tell  where  the  garden  has 
been."  1 

Permit  me,  in  this  paper,  to  notice  some  miscellaneous  points, 
connected  with  this  controversy  ;  and  in  doing  so,  if  there  is  nothing 
reasonable  in  what  I  say,  I  am  perfectly  willing  it  should  fall  to  the 
ground.  J  am  not  so  sanguine,  as  to  imagine,  that  I  can  bring  con- 
viction to  minds  already  fixed,  or  to  those,  who,  from  ignorance  or 
conceit,  think  that  their  own  sapient  opinion  is  the  standard  by  which 
all  others  are  to  be  measured.  No  one  is  so  blind  as  he  that  will  not 
see,  nor  is  there  any  task  so  hopeless,  as  that  of  reasoning  with  pre- 
judiced folly. 

The  nullifier  asserts  that  our  Union  is  a  compact,  between  the 
people  of  the  different  states,  having  no  umpire  to  settle  questions 
of  jurisdiction,  and  thai  consequently  each  party  must  judge  of  in- 
fractions for  itself,  and  of  course  carry  that  judgment  into  effect. 
Now,  out  of  this  right  of  judging,  both  on  the  part  of  the  majority 
and  minority  grow  the  difficulties  of  the  whole  question.  I  admit 
the  doctrine  to  the  fullest  extent ;  I  cant  avoid  it — it  grows  out  of 
the  nature  of  things — and  belongs  not  only  to  our  institutions,  but 
all  others.  We  call  it,  however,  by  different  names  ;  and  names 
here  are  substantial  things.  Our  opponents  say,  that  this  right  of 
arresting  the  laws,  by  die  minority,  is  a  constitutional  right,  that 
can  be  exercised  with  perfect  safety  :  while  we,  on  the  contrary, 
assert,  that  it  is  a  revolutionary  right,  unhioivn  to  the  Constitution, 
involving  the  shedding  of  blood,  and  consequently  to  be  resorted  to 
only  in  extreme  cases.  This  presents  the  naked  point  of  the  con- 
troversy, and  1  think  1  have  shewn  in  the  two  last  numbers,  that  the 
constitution  never  contemplated  such  a  doctrine.  •  It  is  not  oniy 
silent  on  the  subject,  but  such  a  power,  exercised  by  the  minority,  is 
utterly  incompatible  with  the  rights  and  powers,  conferred  by  that 
instrument,  on  the  government  of  the  Union.  If  the  nullifier  is 
right,  then  the  framers  of  the  constitution  were  guilty  of  designedly 
«fltroducing  the  elements  of  civil  ?var9  into  an  instrument,  the  very 


25 


object  of  whose  creation,  was  to  avoid  this  evil.  No  government, 
no  people  in  framing  a  government,  ever  introduces  the  elements  of 
revolution  into  their  institutions.  The  object  is  to  avoid  it,  and 
it  is  for  this  express  purpose  that  governments  are  established. 

The  rights  of  revolution,  however,  remain  in  the  hands  of  the 
people,  as  it  were  in  a  state  of  abeyance,  to  be  called  into  operation 
whenever  the  exigencies  of  the  times  require  it.  It  is  a  right,  like- 
wise, that  can  be  exercised  only  by  force  ;  and  if  an  attempt  is 
made,  and  fails,  the  books  tell  us,  it  is  rebellion  or  treason.  I  am 
not  laying  down  new  theories  ;  they  are  as  old  as  the  pages  of  histo- 
ry itself ;  and  all  persons  acquainted  with  these  matters  must  admit 
the  fact.  When  that  power,  which  is  authorized  to  pass  laws,  does 
so;  and  that  other  authority,  which  adjudicates,  pronounces  them 
valid,  any  attempt  to  arrest  the  executive  authority,  in  executing,  if 
successful,  involves  a  principle  of  revolution;  and  if  unsuccessful, 
provided  an  overt  act  has  been  committed,  is  treason  or  rebellion. 
"  Treason,"  says  the  constitution,  "  shall  consist  in  levying  war 
against  the  United  States,  in  adhering  to  their  enemies,  or  in  giving 
them  aid  or  comfort."  Ought  we  not,  therefore,  to  weigh  well,  and 
maturely,  the  situation  in  which  we  are  placed,  before  we  make  a 
move,  from  which  there  is  no  retreat,  except  over  the  ashes  of  our 
institutions,  or  by  an  ignominious  scaffold  1 

1  regret  to  say,  that  the  signs  of  the  times  are  not  encouraging. 
There  appears  a  dark  and  angry  cloud  hanging  on  the  verge  of  our 
political  horizon.  I  see  the  fiery  streaks — and  I  hear  the  distant 
rumbling  of  the  thunder.  The  cloud,  instead  of  dissipating,  ap- 
pears to  collect,  more  and  more  the  elements  of  mischief.  It  is  true, 
that  at  present,  there  appears  something  of  a  calm ;  but  it  is  that 
calm,  that  dread  stillness,  which  harbingers  the  coming  tempest ; 
and  whether  it  is  to  pass  over  us  without  injury  to  our  institutions, 
or  uproot  and  hurl  them  before  it,  without  leaving  one  stone  upon 
another,  is  yet  beneath  the  veil  of  futurity.  From  the  present  as- 
pect of  affairs,  it  would  seem  that  our  fathers  had  fought  and  bled  in 
vain — in  vain  have  they  undergone  the  realities  of  a  seven  year's 
war — in  vain,  suffered  hunger  and  nakedness  through  summer's  heat 
and  winter's  cold — in  vain  did  those  sages  labor,  who  founded  our 
present  institutions ;  and  much  were  they  deceived  when  th#y  fondly 
imagined  that  they  were  rearing  a  temple  of  freedom,  in  which,  for 
their  posterity  to  dwell.  A  spirit  of  faction  has  gone  abroad — the 
people  have  been  excited  to  madness,  and  high  and  honorable  men 
are  fanning  the  flame.  Our  system  is  said  to  be  a  "splendid  failure" ; 
calls  are  publicly  made  tor  a  ."  southern  confederacy"  ;  and,  in  ma- 
ny circles,  it  is  considered  as  disreputable,  even  to  apologise  for  that 
government,  which  our  fathers  thought  their  richest  legacy  to  their 
children.  This  disorganizing — nullifying— factious—  minority- 
governing — monarchical  doctrine — must  be  put  down,  and  stamped 
with  public  infamy  or  the  "  signs"  deceive  us,  if  14  the  days  of  the 
years"  of  this  Union  are  not  nearly  numbered. 

But,  admit  we  are  injured,  and  I  shall  not  deny  it ;  nay,  I  be* 
lieve  we  are,  in  common  with  the  great  mass  of  the  nation  :  admit 
I  say,  that  Congress  have  done  us  tnis  injury,  is  that  a  reason  wh*7 
4 


26 


We  should  fall  upon  a  project  to  destroy  the  very  existence  of  the 
government  itself  1  Why  should  we  violate  and  tear  to  pieces  the 
constitution  of  ihe  Union,  because,  in  our  opinion,  Congress  has  not 
obeyed  its  precepts?  Congress  has  injured  «s,  say  the  gentlemen, 
and  as  a  remedy,  we  are  called  on  to  destioy  the  constitution! ! 
What  would  you  think  of  the  sapiency  of  a  planter,  who,  late  in  the 
season,  finding  his  crop  badly  set  with  weeds,  should  order  it  to  be 
ploughed  up  by  way  of  clearing  it?  Or  what  would  you  say  to 
the  wisdom  of  a  man,  who  finding  his  dwelling  infested  with  rats, 
should,  by  way  of  removing  them,  fire  the  building  itself  ?  You 
would  doubtless  say  that  there  was  no  wisdom  in  the  matter,  and 
yet  these  are  remedies  of  precisely  the  same  character,  as  is  the 
doctrine  of  nullification  ! 

It  is  impossible  to  look  abroad  upon  the  various  movements  of 
late  political  events,  without  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  this  re- 
pnblic  is  in. danger.  The  Union  depends  upon  public  opinion,  and 
whenever  its  cunent  sets  in  an  opposite  direction,  chains  of  brass 
will  not  hold  these  states  together.  Indeed  as  things  now  stand,  I 
have  not  ©ne  doubt  that  the  first  conflict  that  comes,  or  the  first 
gun  that  is  fired,  sounds  the  funeral  knell  of  our  political  compact. 
Men  who  live  in  the  shades  of  retirement — who.  know  and  see  little 
of  the  "  signs  of  the  times" — who  are  unacquainted  with  the  move- 
ment of  distinguished  public  men — who  scan  not  the  history  of  de- 
parted time  and  nations — and  who  forget  that  human  nature  is  the 
the  same  in  every  age  ;  may  smile  at  this  assertion,  and  exclaim,  if 
they  please,  that  there  is  nothing  to  fear.  Be  it  so.  Hog  your 
fond  delusions — gx>  on  to  huzza  for  faction — pile  fuel  on  the  fur- 
nace, and  fan  the  flame ;  but  remember,  this  is  the  road  to  min  ; 
pursuing  it,  and  by  in  all  human  probability,  those  rights  and  privi- 
leges which  heretofore  we  have  valued  .0  highly,  will  go  down  in 
a  scene  of  blood. 

Prosperity  and  happiness,  in  this  life,  is  an  uphill  affair,  and  re- 
quires continual  and  unremitting  exertions.  Freedom  is  not  the  na- 
tural state  of  man.  This,  all  history  proves.  In  all  ages — in  all 
nations,  (a  very  few  excepted,)  the  mighty  mass  of  human  beings 
b  ive  been  the  slaves  of  the  chosen  few,  who  with  boot  and  spur 
ride  thed),  as  beasts  of  burthen.  A  time  of  peace  and  quietude, 
when  eacPi  citizen  is  calmly  pursuing,  at  home,  the  laudable  occu^ 
pation  of  providing  for  his  own  and  children's  comfort,  is  unpropi- 
tious  and  unfavorable  to  the  aspiring  ambition  of  the  demagogue. 
He  thirsts  for  "  action" — he  wishes  for  political  excitement  and 
civil  commotion  ;  for  it  is  then  he  draws  on  his  boots,  and  buckles 
his  spurs,  to  ride  the  whirlwind,  and  direct  the  storm — and  when 
the  excrement  is  over — the  tempest  past — and  the  people  have 
opened  their  eyes,  they  find  him  who  has  thus  been  goading  them 
in  the  flanks,  calmly  resting  on  a  throne  of  state,  kindly  prepared 
to  rule. :  because,  as  he  will  tell  them,  he  found  them  "  incapable 
of  self  government."  This  is  man^-ambitious  man  :  Let  the  peo- 
ple look  to  it. 

But,  says  the  nullifier,  the  tariff'  has  depopulated,  and  rendered  a 
barren  waste  the  face  of  our  country.  Is  this  true  ?  I  challenge 
human  ingenuity  to  prove  it ;  and  it  is  precisely  on  this  point  that 


ftiiere  has  been  more  extravagant  declamation  and  sophistry,  than 
any  other.  The  tariff  cannot  possibly  act  on  us  except  in  one  of  two 
ways:  first,  in  raising  the  price  of  goods,  and  secondly,  in  depre- 
ciating the  price  of  cotton.  Now,  have  goods  risen  ?  Will  any 
candid  man  say  they  have  not  fallen  at  least  one  half?  A  man 
who  has  the  least  regard  to  truth  cant  deny  it.  But  is  this  fall 
caused  by  the  tariff?  I  dont  say  that  it  is,  nor  is  it  necessary  for 
my  argument :  for  all  I  wish  to  shew  is,  that  goods  have  fallen,  and 
that  the  tariff  has  not  prevented  it  ;  although  I  am  willing  to  admit, 
and  verily  believe,  that  in  many  instances  they  would  go  still  lower, 
if  the  tax  was  removed.  A  distinguished  gentleman  has  asserted 
that  the  apparent  fall  of  goods  is  deceptive  ;  that  it  is  not  so  in  fact ; 
and  that  the  only  change  on  this  point  is,  the  appreciated  value  of 
money,  one  dollar  now  being  worth  what  two  was  a  few  years  since. 
The  same  gentleman  has  also  attempted  to  shew,  that  the  tariff  has 
fallen  almost  exclusively  on,  and  destroyed  the  value  of  cotton. 
Now,  compare  his  arguments,  and  note  the  consequence.  Goods  have 
not  fallen,  says  he — the  only  change  is  in  the  value  of  money.  Be 
it  so.  Cotton  was  worth  eight  cents  before  the  passage  of  the  ta- 
riff of  1828  ;  on  an  average  it  has  been  worth  more  than  eight  since. 
One  dollar  now  is  worth  two  formerly;  therefore,  we  get  equal  to 
sixteen  cents  for  our  cotton,  and  yet  says  the  gentleman,  the  tariff 
has  destroyed  the  value  of  cotton  !  ! 

I  am  no  friend  of  the  tariff,  and  never  have  been  ;  l)ut  in  thi* 
time  of  excitement,  when  this  subject  is  dressed  up  in  all  the  horrors 
of  a  diseased  imagination,  to  produce  effect  on  the  public^  and  in- 
duce it  to  sustain  what  the  greatest  of  living  patriots  calls  "  a  mad 
project"  against  the  government  of  our  country,  we  are  compellec^ 
in  defence  of  truth,  to  tear  off  the  veil  and  expose  the  sophistry. 
I  admit  the  tariff  an  evil,  and  will,  by  all  constitutional  means  assist 
in  its  repeal  or  modification.  But  is  it  the  cause  of  all  mischief? 
Is  it  the  malaria  that  hangs  like  an  incubus  over  the  marshy  dis- 
tricts of  the  low  country,  and  which  has  almost  depopulated  large 
sections  there  ?  Is  it  the  cause  why  fences  are  disappearing,  gates 
falling  from  their  hinges,  chimnies  and  piazzas  lying  prostrate  on  the 
green  ;  while  only  here  and  there,  like  "  angel  visits,  few  and  far 
between"  appears  a  pale,  tallow-faced  human  being,  to  break  the 
monotony  of  the  scene?  Is  it  the  cause  of  these  appearances  in 
particular  sections  of  the  low  country  ?  If  it  is,  then  indeed  is  it  a 
most  fearful  foe  ;  for  it  has  been  operating  for  the  last  forty  or  fifty 
years,  long,  long  before  it  had  its  own  existence,  and  by  parity  of  " 
reason,  will  continue  to  shed  abroad  its  baleful  influence,  even  after 
it  is  repealed  or  nullified.  If  gentlemen  wish  so  know  what  it  is 
that  prevents  the  flourishing  of  these  marshy  districts,  and  induces 
them  to  present  so  wild  and  desolating  an  appearance,  the  answer  is 
easy  ;  'tis  malaria, — 'tis  fever, — 'tis  disease  and  death, — 'tis  some- 
thing that  cannot  be  nullified,  and  from  which  population  fly  more 
hastily,  than  from  the  most  deadly  of  human  foes.  I  appeal  to  can* 
dor  and  truth,  and  ask  if  this  is  not  so  ? 

But  why  have  not  the  Southern  states  generally,  increased  more 
in  population,  and  presented  a  more  flourishing  aspect*  Here, 


28 


again,  the  answer  is  equally  easy,  and  on  a  moment's  reflection, 
must  come  home  to  every  man's  bosom.  'Tis  emigration.  Where 
are  our  children  1  our  brothers  and  sisters?  our  relations,  friends 
and  acquaintances?  Where  are  they  ?  Permit  me  to  answer  in 
the  words  of  the  simple  ballad — "  over  the  hills  and  far  away.'v 
We  are  young  quails  ;  we  start  from  the  nest  with  the  shell  on  our 
bricks.  We  regard  not  the  places  of  our  nativity,  nor  the  scenes  of 
our  youth.  Visions  of  new  and  prolific  countries,  where  the  boun- 
tiful hand  of  nature  furnishes,  almost  gratuitously,  the  whole  wants 
of  hamanity,  haunt  our  imagination  from  infancy  upwards  ;  and  we 
are  taught  to  believe,  that  in  them  is  to  be  found  the  grand  specific 
that  is  to  cure  us  of  every  ill.  If  we  have  no  settlement  here — or 
if  our  land*  are  exhausted  and  worn  out — or  if  we  wish  to  settle  our 
children  around  us — or  if,  from  improvidence  we  have  gotten  into 
difficulties  and  debt — or,  finally,  if  we  are  in  pursuit  of  wealth, 
u  that  god  of  this  world,  before  which  every  knee  bows"  ;  in  each 
and  every  of  these  cases,  a  voice  tells  us,  that  the  boon  we  seek 
lies  in  these  new  countries  in  the  west,  or  still  further  south,  where 
the  lands  are  rich  and  cost  nothing.  Under  these  circumstances,  is 
it  at  all  surpr  ising  that  there  should  be  a  continual  stream  of  emi- 
gration ;  or  that  large  masses  of  our  population  should  be  seen  con- 
tinually climbing  the  craggy  steeps  of  the  Alleghanies,  or  passing 
the  b>oad  streams  that  intervene  to  make  their  way  to  the  rich  val- 
lies  of  the  west,  or  the  warm  and  verdant  south'?  I  look  around 
me  for  my  old  friends  and  neighbors,  but  they  are  not  here  :  their 
place  is  occupied  by  a  colored  race,  while  there,  the  associates  of 
my  youth  are  fattenirrg  on  the  prolific  soil  of  this  western  and  south- 
ern Egypt.  Shall  we  complain  of  this  1  Shall  we,  repining  at 
their  prosperity,  pass  laws  to  prevent  emigration,  and  confine  our 
people  to  the  malaria  of  the  swamp,  or  sterility  of  the  sand-hill, 
there  to  linger  the  victim  of  disease  and  hopeless  poverty  ?  Not 
so.  In  the  name  of  all  that  is  good,  let  each  citizen  of  the  state  go 
and  come  as  he  may  think  best,  for  his  own  prosperity,  nor  let  us 
act  the  part  of  the  dog  in  the  manger,  who  would  neither  eat  him- 
self, noi  permit  others  to  do. so.* 

These  are  the  cardinal  causes  that  have  prevented  our  country 
from  presenting  a  more  flourishing  aspect,  and  compared  with  which 
all  others  sink  into  insignificance.  If  proof  is  required,  then  roll 
back  the  tide  of  population  from  the  States  of  Kentucky,  Tennes- 
see, Alabama,  Florida,  Mississippi,  and  Louisiana,  to  within  the 
limits  of  the  four  Southern  Atlantic  States,  from  which  nineteen- 
twentieths  of  it  came,  and  what  a  change  would  the  whole  exhibit  ! 
what  cultivated  fields  !  what  flourishing  cities  !  and  what  a  dense 
and  teeming  population  would  the  whole  present !  I  repeat,  that  it 
is  emigration,  that  is  the  real  cause  of  the  stat  onary  condition  of 
the  south  :  it  is  that  ever  moving  stream  that  bears  our  friends  away, 
nor  will  there  be  a  reflux  until  the  broad  valley  of  the  Mississippi 
teems  with  population. 

*  See  Gov.  Miller's  message  to  the  Legislature,  where  he  hints  at  the  pro. 
|>riety  of  passing  a  law  to  prevent  the  people  leaving  the  State- 


29 


NO.  8. 

In  relation  to  the  general  charge,  of  decay,  and  delerioi  atiou 
of  our  state,  I  have  replied  in  the  last  paper,  and  shewn,  as  I  think, 
why  it  is  that  she  has  not  increased  more  in  wealth  and  population. 
There  however  may  be,  and  probably  is,  a  mistake  in  this  matter  ; 
and  from  the  extravagant  and  hyperbolical  assertions  made  in  re- 
gard to  it,  it  is  not  at  all  surprising  it  should  be  so.  The  truth  is,  the 
state  is  not  declining  nor  decaying.  Not  so.  No  such  thing  ;  and 
this  will  appear  abundantly  evident  when  I  state,  that  notwith- 
ing  the  unhealthiness  of  particular  sections,  and  notwithstanding  the 
continual  stream  of  emigration,  yet  the  increase  of  population,  as 
shewn  by  the  late  census,  for  the  last  ten  years,  is  equal  to  eighty- 
three  thousand  inhabitants.  It  is  also  a  matter  of  notoriety  to  those 
who  have  paid  attention  to  the  matter,  that  the  improvement  in  the 
fiscal  or  moneyed  department,  has  been  about  in  the  same  proportion. 
Let  us  therefore  hear  no  more  about  this  decaying  state — this  bar- 
ren waste — this  howling  wilderness — unless  there  is  better  evidence 
on  which  to  found  the  assertions. 

But  I  must  bring  these  observations  to  a  close,  particularly  as  I 
find  that  the  topics  connected  with  them  are  almost  endless.  I 
could  have  wished  to  have  given  my  own  views  of  the  nature  of 
our  institutions  generally,  as  a  creed  by  which  I  am  willing  to  he 
judged,  until  I  am  convinced  I  am  wrong.  But  as  this  would 
lengthen  out  the  present  paper  too  much,  I  must  on  this  subject 
merely  say  that  I  concur  most  heartily  in  the  views  of  the  Hon. 
Edward  Livingston,  as  delivered  in  a  speech  on  Foot's  resolutions 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  I  believe  he  there  gave  the 
true  theory  of  our  government,  and  whoever  goes  to  the  right,  or 
left,  of  the  line  he  laid  down,  is  off  the  track. 

A  search  of  truth  should  be  our  main  object ;  and  it  is  well 
known  that  hours  of  passion,  and  political  excitement,  are  pecu- 
liarly unfavorable  for  this  purpose.  When  called  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment on  the  value  of  our  institutions,  passion  should  be  laid  aside, 
and  reason — cool,  calculating  reason,  should  assume  the  chair. 
But  is  this  our  situation  ?  Or  is  this  the  state  of  things  in  our  coun- 
try at  this  time?  Far  from  it.  We  cant  deny  that  we  have  those 
among  us,  who  are  making  the  most  unremitting  exertions  to  bring 
into  disrepute,  and  consequently,  to  put  down  those  institutions,  and 
that  government,  which  our  ancestors  reared  and  cemented  with 
their  blood.  No  blood-hounds  having  their  chase  in  view,  ever  ex- 
hibited more  determination  for  its  destruction,  than  is  now  mani- 
fested by  some  of  this  party,  to  come  to  collision  with  the  general 
government ;  and  it  is  openly  proclaimed,  that  unless  the  law  is 
repealed  we  will  resort  to  force.  Alas  !  for  poor  human  nature  ; 
is  it  even  so,  that  before  the  boasting  of  the  glories  of  our  happy 
destiny  and  eountry,  have  even  ceased  sounding  in  our  ears  ;  mad- 
ness should  thus  seize,  and  induce  us,  to  tear  down  the  only  temple 
of  free  institutions  on  earth,  and  proclaim  with  a  voice  that  will  be 


80 


heard  with  joy  and  exultation,  in  the  palaces  of  kings,  to  the  ut- 
most verge  of  civilization,  that  "man  is  incapable  of  self  govern* 
ment  ? 

Let  the  conflict  once  commence  ;  let  blood  once  be  shed,  and 
the  Union  is  gone  ;  and  1  would  as  soon  expect  to  see  a  planet  start 
madly  from  its  sphere,  and  roll  beyond  the  verge  of  creation,  as  to 
see  republican  and  free  institutions  springing  from  the  ashes  of  our 
present  system.  The  soil  that  drinks  the  blood  of  brothers  shed  in 
civil  commotion,  rears  no  plants  to  freedom  ;  and  when  that  period 
comes,  come  when  it  may,  military  rule,  and  iron  handed  despots 
ism,  as  certainly  make  their  appearance  as  is  the  progress  of  time. 
Shall  the  lessons  of  experience  have  no  effect  upon  us  1  Shall  we 
scan  the  pages  of  departed  time  and  nations,  and  yet  be  no  wiser  ? 
O,  if  the  hearts  of  some  who  are  now  exciting  the  people  to  mad- 
ness, were  exposed  to  public  view,  1  much  fear  that  more  love  of 
self  than  country  would  be  found  there  ;  that  visions  of  stars  and 
garters,  offices  and  power,  woufd  be  seen  lurking  beneath  the  pre- 
sent flaming  professions  of  patriotism. 

If  our  public  men  do  us  mischief,  let  us  endeavor  to  change  them  ; 
if  those  who  officiate  at  the  altar,  are  found  to  be  unworthy,  on  them 
let  your  resentment  fall.  Watch  closely  the  movement  of  those 
who  exercise  the  powers  of  the  government,  and  if  they  go  estray. 
check  them,  or  hurl  them  from  their  ill-gotten  eminence  by  every 
constitutional  mean  within  your  power ;  but  beware  how  you  lay 
your  hands  on  the  pillars  of  the  temple  itself;  for  if  it  falls — free- 
dom dies — the  drama  will  be  closed — and  it  will  be — exeunt  omnes. 

MAPISON. 


31 


ADDITIONAL  REMARKS. 

BY  THE  PUBLISHER. 


Perhaps,  never,  since  the  birth  of  our  republic,  have  our  in- 
stitutions been  exposed  to  more  jeopardy  than  at  the  present  mo- 
mentous crisis — hence  it  becomes  every  patriot,  every  friend  of 
liberty,  to  weigh  well  the  motives  and  the  arguments  of  those  who 
would  make  us  believe  that  the  grand  experiment  of  our  govern- 
ment has  proved  a  "  splendid  failure"  and  that  "  disunion  is  our 
only  preservation!" — "tke  United  States  no  nation'''' — that  "  we  arc 
no  better  off  than  the  Belgians  and  Poles" — and  that  the  time  has 
come  when  patiiotism  invites  us  "  to  calculate  the  value  of  the 
Union" :  and  no  longer  "  to  tremble  at  disunion  !"  And  to  assist 
the  candid  inquirer  after  truth,  we  would  again  most  earnestly  re- 
commend the  perusal  of  the  foregoing  essays,  penned  in  a  spirit  of 
moderation,  strictly  argumentative,  and  breathing  throughout  a  spir- 
it of  the  purest  patriotism. 

The  plea  of  the  milliners,  whereon  is  so  confidently  predicated 
the  righteousness  of  resistance,  "  at  any  and  every  hazard,"  is  a 
"  palpable"  violation  of  the  constitution  :  yet  palpable  as  this  vio- 
lation now  is,  it  was  entirely  unobserved  by  the  Hon.  Geo.  M'Duf- 
h*e  and  Governor  Hamilton  in  1821  !  The  following  are  quota- 
tions  from  a  pamphlet,  written  in  that  year  by  the  former  gentle- 
man, (Mr.  IVPDuffie,)  and  prefaced  by  the  latter  : 

"  The  states,  as  political  bodies,  have  no  original  inherent  rights. 
That  they  have  such  rights,  is  a  false,  dangerous,  and  anti-republi- 
can assumption  which  lurks  at  the  bottom  of  all  the  reasoning  in 
favor  of  state  rights." 

"  It  is  the  ambition  of  that  class  of  politicians  who  expect  to 
figure  only  in  the  state  councils,  and  of  those  states  who  are  too 
proud  to  acknowledge  any  superior.  An  ambition  and  pride  of  the 
most  alarming  and  dangerous  tendency,  and  which,  if  not  dis- 
countenanced by  moderate  and  reflecting  men,  may,  at  some  fu- 
ture day,  dissolve  our  happy  union,  and  sweep  away  in  a  tide  of 
civil  blood,  all  that  constitutes  the  happiness  of  individuals,  or  the 
glory  of  a  nation." 

"  By  the  express  letter  of  the  national  charter,  Congress  has 
power  to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises,  to  de- 
clare war,  &c.  to  raise  and  support  armies,  and  to  provide  and  main- 
tain a  navy.  These  powers  are  granted  in  the  most  general  and 
unlimited  terms.  Upon  the  discretion  of  Congress,  in  laying  and 
collecting  taxes,  and  in  raising  and  supporting  armies,  theii  are  no 
restrictions  but  those  imposed  by  nature*" 


"  If  after  the  National  Judiciary  has  solemnly  affirmed  the  con- 
stitutionality of  a  law,  it  is  still  to  be  resisted  by  the  state  rulers, 
the  constitution  is  literally  at  an  end:  <z  revolution  w/  the  go- 
vernment is  already  accomplished,  and  anarchy  waves  its  horrid 
sceptre  over  the  broken  altars  of  this  happy  Union." 

"  You  assert  that  when  any  conflict  shall  occur  between  the  gen- 
eral and  state  governments  as  to  the  extent  of  their  respective  pow- 
ers, 4  each  party  has  a  right  to  judge  for  itself.''  I  confess  I  am 
at  a  loss  to  know  how  such  a  proposition  ought  to  be  treated.  No 
climax  of  political  heresies  can  be  imagined,  in  which  this  might 
not  fairly  claim  the  most  prominent  place.  It  resolves  the  govern- 
ment at  once  into  the  elements  of  physical  force,  and  introduces  us 
directly  into  a  scene  of  anarchy  and  blood.  There  is  not  a  single 
power  delegated  to  the  general  government  which  it  would  not  be 
in  the  power  of  every  state  to  destroy  under  this  licentious  princi- 
ple." "  Suppose  Congress  should  pass  a  law  '  to  lay  and  collect 

taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises,'  and  a  state  legislature  should 
pass  another  declaring  the  object  for  which  the  revenue  was  intend- 
ed, unconstitutional,  and  therefore  prohibiting  the  officers  of  the 
general  government  by  severe  penalties  from  collecting  the  '  taxes, 
duties,  imposts,  and  excises,'  "  &c. 

"  In  all  governments  theie  must  be  some  owe  supreme  power  ;  in 
oilier  words,  every  question  that  can  arise,  as  to  the  constitutional 
extent  of  the  powers  of  different  classes  of  functionaries,  must  be 
susceptible  of  a  legal  and  peaceable  determination,  by  some  tribu- 
nal of  acknowledged  authority,  or  force  must  be  the  inevitable  con- 
sequence  ;  and  where  force  begins,  government  ends.  And  it  is  the 
more  astonishing  that  you  have  assumed  positions  involving  such 
tremendous  consequences,  when  we  consider  that  they  are  in  di- 
rect opposition  to  the  'strict  letter'  of  the  constitution,  your  favo- 
rite test  of  the  extent  of  delegated  powers.  It  is  therein  provided, 
;  that  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States  which  shall  be 
made  in  pursuance  thereof,'  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, 
and  the  judges  in  every  state  shall  be  bound  thereby,  any  thing  in 
the  constitution  or  law  of  any  state  to  the  contrary  notivithstand- 
ing'J" 

"  For  you  can  hardly  be  ignorant  that  a  law  is  a  dead  letter  with- 
out an  organ  to  expound  and  an  instrument  to  enforce  it.  I  would 
suppose,  therefore,  that  no  professional  man  could  hesitate  in  saying 
that  a  forcible  opposition  to  the  judgment  of  the  federal  court, 
founded  upon  an  act  of  Congress,  by  whatever  state  authority  that 
opposition  might  be  authorized,  would  be  the  very  case  which  the 
framers  of  our  constitution  had  in  view  when  they  made  provision 
for  *  calling  out  the  militia  to  execute  the  laws  of  rthe  Union.'  But 
I  sincerely  hope  that  your  licentious  doctrines  will  never  have  the 
effect  of  misleading  the  state  authorities  so  far,  as  to  render  this  ter- 
rible resort  unavoidable.  I  trust  that  the  farewell  address  of 
General  Washington,  admonishing  his  fellow-citizens  to  '  frown  in- 
dignantly' upon  those  who  preach  up  doctrines  tending  to  disunion, 
&  not  yet  forgotten." 


* 


